Perry Lutheran Home
2323 East Willis Avenue, Perry, IA 50220 · Non profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (515) 465-5342 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0609, F0610) — most recent May 2024
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (22) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $16,351 in federal fines (most recent 2023-11-21)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 1 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 | 17.7% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.3% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 1.3% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.7% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.3% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.6% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 46.1% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.92 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.56 | 2.08 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.08 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 0.68 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 70 beds and averages 51.8 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.74 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.60 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.97 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.77 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
22 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2023-11-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, staff interview, facility policy and procedures the facility failed to provide an environment free from sexual abuse for residents that are not able to consent to sexually aggressive behavior such as inappropriate touching, grabbing, fondling, and/or kissing for 2 of 17 residents in the Memory Care Unit (Residents #2 and Resident #6). On two different occasions in the facility's dining room revealed Resident #6 and Resident #2 kissing, fondling, and touching each other over their clothes with other residents sitting at tables in the dining room observing, while a staff member assisted other residents, unaware of the situation. A serious adverse outcome is likely to occur as the facility additionally failed to report and thoroughly investigate all allegations of abuse. In addition, without a thorough investigation, the facility did not know of other residents identified as affected. The facility had an immediate need to take steps to ensure the protection of all…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-11-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy/procedure the facility failed to notify the Administration of an incident of sexual nature between two residents with the inability to consent. Despite the facility learning of the incident and watching the video, the facility reported they felt the incident did not need reported. As the facility did not notify the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing (IDIAL) this increased the likelihood of future incidents occurring. The facility reported a censure of 63 residents. On November 11th, 2023 at 5:00 p.m., the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing (DIAL) staff contacted the facility staff to notify them the Department staff determined an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation existed at the facility. The facility staff removed the immediacy on November 15th, 2023 after the facility completed the following: a. Implemented new CCDI Assessment of Awareness related to identifying upon admission residents who may be…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-11-21 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review, staff interview, the facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate all allegations of abuse, and separate a possible abuser from other residents. The facility lacked documentation of thorough investigations. The facility failed to conduct resident and staff interviews to determine the extent of the allegations, if other residents were involved. A serious outcome was likely to occur as the facility failed to report and thoroughly investigate all allegations of abuse. Additionally, without the thorough investigation, it was unknown if other residents were involved. Despite the facility learning of the incident and watching the video, the facility reported they felt the incident did not need reported. There is an immediate need for the facility to conduct a thorough investigation all allegations of abuse to protect all residents form the potential of sexual abuse. The facility reported a census of 63 residents. On November 11th, 2023 at 5:00 p.m., the Iowa…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-11-21 · 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 observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide one-on-one (1:1) supervision on an ambulatory cognitively impaired resident for 1 of 17 residents in the secure memory unit. (Resident #2) Resident #2 had documentation from the physician that the resident needed to be in a locked unit to prevent elopement and had exhibited exit seeking behaviors for several days prior to exiting the facility unsupervised. On 9/24/23, Resident #2 while left unsupervised, exited the facility after going to church on the unlocked first floor of the facility. Around 9:00 a.m., a staff member observed Resident #2 on the south side of the facility in the alley. Resident #2 exited the building without authorization. This failure resulted in Immediate Jeopardy to the health, safety, and security of the resident. On November 16, 2023 at 11:10 a.m., the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing (IDIAL) staff contacted the facility to notify them 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-10-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, family interview, staff interviews, police dispatch interview and policy review, the facility failed to appropriately assess and provide intervention to 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #2) for hospitalization and further failed to follow physician orders and provide adequate intervention for low blood sugars (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 52 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of medically complex conditions, heart failure, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia and respiratory failure. The MDS revealed the resident was on high risk drug classes to include insulin and had received insulin injections 7 days of the 7 day look back period. The Care Plan for Resident #2, with an initiation date of [DATE], included a focus area: resident had a diagnosis of diabetes and was at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-11-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy/procedure review at the time of the investigation, the facility failed to provide needed services in accordance with professional standards for one of three residents reviewed by not sending a resident to the nearest emergency room when their was a change in their assessment for which resulted in the resident being admitted to the hospital with hypoxemia, bronchopneumonia and dehydration. (Resident #2). The facility identified a census of 59 residents. Findings include: 1. A admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed for Resident #2 with an assessment reference date of 8/5/24, documented diagnosis for which included hypertension, non-Alzheimer dementia, anxiety, depression, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The MDS documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 which indicated severe impaired cognitive decisions and no acute onset of mental changes. The resident required substantial…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-01-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and hospital record review, the facility failed to prevent injuries for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Residents #7 and #8). Resident #7's fall risk assessments and care plan identified her as a high risk for falls due to impaired balance and poor safety awareness. The staff observed Resident #7 on the floor of the living room after she sustained her ninth fall in a two-month period on 11/29/23. Of the 9 falls, the staff only observed 1 fall. Following the falls, the facility failed to provide consistent neurological (neuro) checks to rule out a brain injury. The fall required a transfer to the emergency room and resulted in a subdural hematoma (bleed on the brain) that led to death. Resident #8 sustained a fall on 1/1/24 and hit his head, the facility failed to complete a complete neuro assessment after the initial set completed right after the fall. The facility failed to do neurological assessments or complete assessments with any unwitnessed falls. Findings…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-01-24 · 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, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to report a fall with major injury (right femur fracture) that required hospitalization to Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for falls (Resident #9). See F689 for additional information. Findings include: Resident #9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS described Resident #9 as independent with bed mobility, transfers and walking 10 feet with a walker. The MDS included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, Non-Alzheimer's disease, depression, polymyalgia rheumatica (an inflammatory condition that causes pain and stiffness in the neck, shoulders, and hips) and peripheral venous insufficiency (impaired veins in the legs). The Fall-Witness report dated 11/22/23 at 9:30 PM reflected Resident #9 fell, went to the emergency room (ER), received a diagnosis…
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 before2026-04-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards by not completing appropriate hand hygiene during meal service. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.Findings include:On 4/1/26 at 11:20 AM an observation revealed Staff C, CNA assisted a resident seated at a lunch room table. Staff C walked to another resident who attempted to stand up. Staff C explained politely to the resident that he would assist the resident in eating lunch. Staff C sat down next to the resident, did not complete hand hygiene, used a fork and assisted the resident in taking some bites of food. On 4/1/26 at 1:48 PM Staff C explained that Resident #2 required assistance today with lunch. Staff C explained he washes his hands in the big bathroom usually. Staff C acknowledged he did not complete hand hygiene prior to assisting Resident #2 with the lunch meal today. On 4/2/26 at 11:30 AM the Administrator explained she expected that staff assisting a resident with any meal would have completed hand hygiene prior to 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 before2026-04-02 · 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, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to maintain infection control practices to ensure use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when required during catheter care for 1 (Resident #48) of 2 residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #48, dated 3/10/26, included diagnoses of cancer, urinary tract infection in the past 30 days, and retention of urine. The MDS revealed the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter (tube into the bladder to drain urine).The Care Plan with initiated date 3/10/26, revealed the resident required EBP related to indwelling catheter. Observation on 3/31/26 at 1:32 PM, Staff B, Certified Nurse Aide entered Resident #48's room, with an EBP sign on the door, washed her hands and applied gloves only. Staff B proceeded to cleanse the tip of the catheter bag drain tube, drain the urine from the catheter bag, and cleansed the catheter bag drain tube again. Staff B removed her gloves and washed hands. Interview 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 · D2026-04-02 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and policy review, the facility failed to offer and provide the recommended COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents for 3 of 5 resident reviewed for vaccines (#2, #35, and #38). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.Findings include:1.Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 out of 15 which indicated severely impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and hypertension. It revealed the resident was not up to date with the COVID-19 vaccination.A physician's order dated 10/09/25 docoumented the resident may have annual flu vaccine unless contraindicated with resident or responsible party permission. It did not include a COVID-19 vaccination order.The Electronic Health Record (EHR) included a document titled Flu, RSV, Pneumonia Vaccines and Covid Booster…
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 before2026-01-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews and the peri care audit review, the facility failed to provide proper hand hygiene while providing incontinence care with 1 of 1 residents (Resident #3) observed. The facility reported a total census of 56 residents.Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #3 documented diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, arthritis, hip fracture, and depression. The MDS showed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00, indicating severe cognitive impairment.Observation on 1/5/25 at 3:45 pm with Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Staff B, CNA performed hand hygiene prior to applying gloves, then proceeded to put on their enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). Staff A and Staff B proceeded to remove Resident #3's pants and soiled brief. Staff A cleansed the front perineal area and then Staff A and Staff B rolled Resident #3 towards Staff A and Staff B cleansed the back side of Resident #3. Staff B removed the soiled brief and bed…
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 before2025-03-13 · 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 observations, clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain infection control standards by staff not disinfecting a facility multi-resident use glucose machine (device to measure blood sugar) after use, failed to complete hand hygiene between administering medications for 4 of 5 residents, failed to change gloves and sanitize hands during cares and failed to apply personal protective equipment for catheter and incontinent care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #23) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 60 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation showed on 3/11/25 from 11:10 AM - 12 PM, Staff C, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) administered medications to 4 different residents. Staff A did not wash or sanitize hands before or after administering medications to each of the 4 residents. Facility policy Medication Administration Procedures dated January 2025, revealed to cleanse hands before handling medication and before contact with resident. Interview 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 · Dcited before2025-03-13 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to provide/obtain bed hold notifications for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 60. Findings include: Review of Resident #3's Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) revealed Resident #3 was in the hospital from [DATE] to 2/10/25. Further review of the EHR page titles, Clinical Census confirmed the Resident was in the hospital on these dates. Review for bed hold notification for Resident #3 revealed there was no bed hold form to review for the dates of hospitalization. During an interview on 3/13/25 at 10:14 AM the Administrator acknowledged and verified that there was not a bed hold completed for this hospital stay. The Administrator stated she would expect this to be completed. Review of the undated facility provided policy titled, Bed Hold revealed: Prior to and upon transfer of a resident to a hospital or if the resident goes on therapeutic leave, the facility will provide written notice…
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 before2025-03-13 · 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, staff interviews, facility record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to implement specific fall interventions in a timely manner after 3 falls for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Residents #3). The facility reported a total census of 60 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #3 documented diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's Dementia, anxiety, depression and hypertension. The MDS showed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderate impairment cognition. Review of MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort. Helper lifts or holds the trunk or lungs and provides more than half the effort) with transfers and upper and lower body dressing. Review of the facility reported incident dated 2/14/25 at 7:05 AM revealed Resident #3 was walking with a staff member with her walker to the bathroom when she became weak. Resident #3 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to store and maintain medications in a safe manner. The facility reported a census of 60 residents. Findings include: During an observation on 3/11/25 at 10:54 AM, the medication cart was located in the main hallway by the dining room on the CCDI (Chronic Confusion or Dementing Illness) unit, up against a wall, unlocked. On top of the medication cart was a bubble packet of prescription medication of Olanzapine (an Antipsychotic medication) with 2 pills left in the packet. The cart was left unattended. Approximately 3 minutes later Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), came out of the dining room to the cart. The cart was not observable from the dining room, there is a wall separating the cart from the dining room. Three residents were observed by the medication cart, two of the residents walking independently and one in a wheelchair. The cart was unattended upon arrival to the unit at 10:54 AM, with no nursing staff present, and was unattended for approximately 4 minutes of observation. During an…
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 before2025-03-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 observations, staff interviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to ensure food was prepared under sanitary conditions. The facility identified a census of 60 residents. Findings include: Observation on 3/11/25 at 11:25 AM Staff A, Cook, applied gloves after performing hand hygiene. Staff A with gloved hands grabbed the bread sack and untwisted the bread tie, then opened the bread sack and took out 4 pieces of bread and laid them on a sheet of parchment paper. Staff A then grabbed the peanut butter jar with her gloved hands along with the knife, proceeded to spread peanut butter on the bread. Staff A grabbed the bread and put it together to make the sandwich and cut the sandwich with the knife. Staff A placed the 2 sandwiches on a plate with her soiled gloves. Staff A, then took off the gloves and washed her hands Observation on 3/11/25 at 11:30 AM Staff A, applied a glove to her right hand then proceeded to open a baggie that had a hotdog package inside. Staff A reached into the baggie to open the hotdog package, then reached into the hotdog package with her…
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 before2024-05-16 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure that all residents are treated with dignity and respect, and free from abuse during resident care tasks for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #7). The facility reported a census of 62 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 2/17/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #7 included cerebral palsy, hemiplegia (paralysis or weakness on one side of body), seizure disorder, anxiety disorder and intellectual disabilities The assessment indicated the resident required substantial assistance for upper and lower body dressing, personal hygiene, and dependent for transfers. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 out of 15, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment. The Care Pan updated on 6/20/23 included a focus area regarding Resident #7 becoming frustrated with situations in the environment that he could not control. Interventions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-16 · 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 observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure comfortable positioning, and securement of the safety straps when using a mechanical lift device for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #22, Resident #30). The facility reported a census of 62 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/6/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #22 included cerebrovascular accident (stroke), aphasia (impaired communication), and hemiplegia right side dominant (paralysis/impaired function of right side). The MDS assessed the resident required substantial assistance for mobility and all transfers. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) could not be completed due to the resident being rarely/never understood. The Care Plan updated on 4/24/24 included a focus area Activities of Daily Living for Resident #22. Interventions included the use of an EZ Stand (type of mechanical lift) of two staff for transfers. In an observation on 5/13/24 at 12:05 PM, Resident #22 could be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 interviews, clinical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to accurately account for administered, and destroyed narcotic medication for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #164). The facility reported a census of 62 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/12/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #164 included left femur fracture, fracture of right foot and muscle weakness. The MDS indicated the resident required substantial assistance with transferring, and reported frequent pain. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had intact cognition. According to the Care Plan initiated 4/12/24, Resident #164 had self-care deficit related to fracture of femur. The census tab showed that she was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 4/12/24. A document titled, Controlled Medication Utilization Record showed a sticker from the pharmacy with an order for tramadol 50 mg 1 and ½ tabs every 6 hours as needed for pain. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, pharmacy interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide care and services according to accepted standards of clinical practice for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Residents #3). The facility failed to implement a new physician order in a timely manner. Findings include: Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified she couldn't complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The Staff Assessment for Mental Status revealed Resident #3 as severely impaired with decision making. The MDS described Resident #3 as independent with bed mobility, chair/bed to chair transfers, and ambulation. Resident #3's MDS included diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, depression, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The Nurses Note dated 12/20/23 at 3:09 PM documented notification to the provider of Resident #9's complaints of abdominal pain, having large black formed stools, and emesis…
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.
- No harm found · Bcited before2024-05-16 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to provide a bed hold upon hospitalization for 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #38, #114). The facility reported a census of 62 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessemnt,dated 6/24/23, for Resident #38 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The diagnoses for Resident #38 included coronary artery disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes mellitus, and Alzheimer's disease. The Clinical Census revealed the resident discharged to the hospital on 9/13/23. A Nurses Note dated 9/13/23 at 9:43 PM revealed Resident #38 was admitted to the hospital for a fractured hip. The clinical record lacked documentation the facility provided a bed hold notice to Resident #38 and/or the residents respresentative upon discharge to the hospital. On 5/14/24 at 2:52 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported she could not…
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
$16,351 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $16,351 — penalty dated 2023-11-21
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2023-12-29 for 61 days
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADAIR, COLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2020 |
| GROTHE, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2021 |
| KOELIN, DEBRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| MCCAULLEY, RANDALL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2020 |
| MCVEY, ANITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| METZ, ALAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2015 |
| CARRICK, ANTOINETTE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2021 |
| GANNON, MELISSA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/20/2026 |
| GERKEN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| MARTENS, DENNIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| PHILLIPS, MAX | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2023 |
| HAERTHER, SARA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/16/2022 |
| HILSENBECK, GENEEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/15/2021 |
| KRUSE, KURT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/16/2020 |
| MERRILL, ESTHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/30/2018 |
| ROEDERER, LISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/03/2025 |
| ROTHFUS, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/16/2020 |
| SOHN, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/1998 |
| WHEELDON, RHONDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/10/2010 |
| BCG HOLDINGS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| BLUE STONE THERAPY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2018 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL BCG LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| ECSI INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/25/2016 |
| IOWA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| NCS HEALTHCARE OF IOWA, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
9 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 76% 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 $161K 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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165606. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-02, 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.