Sheffield Care Center
100 Bennett Drive, Sheffield, IA 50475 · Non profit - Corporation · 45 certified beds · (641) 892-4691 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 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 2 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 20.8% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 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 | 4.5% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.4% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.9% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.3% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.8% | 25.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.1% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.4% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.0% | 13.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.76 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.18 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
48.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 53.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 30 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 21% 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 | 48.6%CMS range 34.8–61.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 6.8–15.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 53.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 36.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 36.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 0.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care 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 | 6.1% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 0.87 | 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 45 beds and averages 35.8 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.89 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-08-21 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) worked 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. On 2/1/25 and 8/1/25 the facility failed to ensure they had an RN on duty for at least 8 hours for the entire 24 hours. The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: Review of the Nursing schedules and Timecards lacked a RN on 2/1/25 and 8/1/25.On 8/19/25 at 3:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified she didn't work on 8/1/25. She said she didn't think about needing RN coverage. She said if she could get a day off, she takes it. On 8/19/25 at 3:56 PM, the Administrator verified the facility didn't have RN coverage on 8/1/25. She reported the DON did the best she could with RN coverage. She said the facility only had 3 RNs on staff and used agency staff for RN coverage as needed. On 8/19/25 at 6:26 PM, the Administrator reported she expected the facility to have 8 hours of RN coverage, 7 days per week. On 8/20/25 at 8:30 AM, the Administrator verified the facility didn't have RN coverage…
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 · F2025-08-21 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan, the facilities past surveys, and staff interview, the facility failed to correct their own deficiencies for 2 of 2 areas of concern. Findings include: The survey identified the following concerns at the current survey, previously cited at surveys in the past year:a. Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Trainingb. Infection Prevention and ControlThe facility's QAPI Plan revised April 2014 instructed the facility shall develop, implement, and maintain an ongoing facility wide QAPI Plan designed to monitor and evaluate the quality and safety of resident care, pursue methods to improve care quality, and resolve identified problems. In addition, the QAPI plan included the following objectives:a. Provide a means to identify and resolve present and potential outcomes related to resident care and services.b. Reinforce and build upon effective systems and processes related to delivery of quality care and services.c. Provide structure and processes to correct identified quality and/or safety deficiencies.d.…
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 before2025-08-21 · tag F0943 — patternGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on personnel file reviews, facility policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide dependent adult abuse certification training within 6 months of hire for 2 of 5 employees reviewed (Staff C, Dietary Aide, and Staff D, Housekeeper). The facility identified a census of 37 residents.Findings include: 1. Staff C's personnel file documented a hired date of 12/2/24. The personnel file lacked documentation Staff C had completed Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter Training within 6 months of hire. 2. Staff D's personnel file documented a hired date of 10/7/24. The personnel file included a Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter Training Certificate completed 5/30/25.On 8/19/25 at 1:42 PM, the Business Office Manager (BOM) verified Staff C didn't complete the Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter Training and acknowledged Staff D completed their Dependent Adult Abuse Certification late. The BOM said the facility expected new hires to complete Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter Training within 6 months of hire. On 8/19/25 at 1:50 PM, 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 · D2025-08-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observations and staff interviews the facility failed to implement care plan interventions related to not locking smoking materials for one resident (Resident #27). The facility reported a census of 37 residents.Findings include: 1. Resident #27's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of cerebrovascular accident (CVA or stroke), anxiety and depression. The Care Plan Focus initiated 5/7/24 related to smoking. The Focus reflected Resident #27 smoked for a long-time but recently decided to quit due to the cost of cigarettes however, he did occasionally smoke. Resident #27 had a history of extinguishing his cigarettes on his wheelchair, then keeping the cigarette butts, and storing them in his wheelchair bag. The Interventions directed to store Resident #27's smoking supplies in the north nurses' station. The Smoking - Safety Screen dated 7/26/25…
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 · D2025-08-21 · 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 update a resident's Care Plan to accurately reflect the resident's needs for 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Residents #8 and #32). The facility reported a census of 37 residents.Findings include:1. Resident #8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression, and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Nurse Progress Note dated 6/27/25 at 4:44 PM reflected Resident #8 fell and complained of left hip and leg pain. The Intervention listed the facility sent him to the emergency room for evaluation. The Fall Investigation dated 6/27/25 at 4:31 PM indicated Resident #8 had an unwitnessed fall. The facility sent him to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation. The Intervention reflected the facility would update his Care Plan upon return from 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 · D2025-08-21 · 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 clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #13) for falls. The facility failed to complete a thorough root cause analysis (RCA) and failed to implement new and/or effective fall interventions after a fall occurred. The facility reported a census of 37 residents.Findings Include: Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 indicating severely impaired cognition. Resident #13 required partial/moderate assistance with bed mobility and transfers. The MDS documented Resident #13 used a walker and wheelchair for mobility. The MDS included diagnoses of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (stroke), non-Alzheimer's dementia, hemiplegia (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body), repeated falls, unsteadiness on feet, transient alternation of awareness, dizziness and giddiness, low…
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 · D2025-08-21 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, facility record review, staff interviews, and the facility policy, the facility failed to provide adequate care for a urinary catheter for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #32). The facility reported a census of 37 residents.Findings include: Resident #32's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 2, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of benign prostatic hyperplasia (a non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate gland that commonly occurs in older men), Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease.The Nurse Progress Note dated 8/1/25 at 5:14 AM identified Resident #32 had a urinary catheter.The Clinical Physician Orders reviewed 8/20/25 listed an order dated 8/4/25 to change Resident #32's urinary catheter every month and as needed (PRN).On 8/18/25 at 10:22 AM, observed Resident #32's urinary catheter bag lying on the floor underneath his bed. On 8/19/25 at 1:45 PM witnessed Resident #32's urinary catheter bag hanging on the bed, lying on the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-21 · 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, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to keep the medication cart locked or under direct observation of authorized staff for a minimum of 7 minutes in an area where residents could access it. The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include:Findings include: On 8/18/25 at 12:26 PM, observed the south side medication cart in the hallway near the nurse's station unlocked and unsupervised. During that time, witnessed the following:a.12:26 PM - 1 housekeeper walked past the unlocked medication cart. b.12:27 PM - 1 housekeeper walked past the unlocked medication cart. c.12:30 PM - 2 housekeepers walked past the unlocked medication cart. d.12:33 PM - Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), approached the medication cart. Staff B verified the medication cart was unlocked. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, directed compartments containing medication are locked when not in use. Trays or carts used to transport such items are not to be left unattended. Compartments include, but are not limited to,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-21 · 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, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were followed during 3 resident observations (Resident #1 and Resident #32). Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) failed to disinfect her hands between changing gloves while completing Resident #1's wound treatments. Staff F, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), failed to complete hand hygiene between changing gloves during Resident #32's catheter and perineal (peri). In addition, the facility staff reused the same 2 personal protective gowns when caring for Resident #32 on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for one week before washing. The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, cellulitis of left toe and non-pressure ulcer to left lower leg. The MDS reflected Resident #1 had applications…
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 · E2024-09-26 · tag F0851 — patternElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report (Fiscal Year Quarters 1, 2, and 3, 2024) review, facility staffing review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit staff reports for the PBJ Staffing Data Report. The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include: The PBJ Staffing Data Reports for Fiscal Year 2024, Quarters 1, 2, and 3 all triggered for the following: a. Failed to Submit Data for the Quarter b. One Star Staffing Rating c. Excessively Low Weekend Staffing d. No RN hours d. Failed to have Licensed Nursing Coverage 24 Hours/Day Review of nursing staffing schedules for August and September 2024 revealed appropriate nursing staffing, 8-hour daily RN coverage, and 24 hours/day Licensed Nursing coverage. Interview on 9/26/24 at 11:51 AM, the Administrative Assistant/Office Manager acknowledged the facility didn't successfully submit the staffing data for quarters 1, 2, and 3 as they had changes to the facility's time clock system that she didn't know about. The submitted…
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 before2024-09-26 · 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 interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to initiate Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and they facility didn't know what they were. At the time of the survey 1 resident had a catheter (Resident #23) and didn't have EBP set up in his room. In addition, the facility failed to handle laundry from isolation rooms while wearing the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: Resident #23's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Resident #23 had an indwelling catheter. The MDS included a diagnosis of retention of urine. On 9/23/24 at 11:50 AM, Resident #23 stated he had a catheter and it drained into a leg bag inside of his pant leg. His room didn't have an EBP sign or cart with PPE set up. An email from the Administrator dated 9/26/24 at 1:26 PM documented the facility would initiate EBP for Resident #23 due to his…
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 before2024-09-26 · tag F0943 — isolatedGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on employee's file review, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to assure 2 of 5 employees met the requirements for Mandatory Adult Abuse Training (Staff A and Staff B). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: A review of Staff A's, Dietary Aide, employee file listed a hire date of 1/29/24. The file listed a due date of the two-hour Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter Training as 7/29/24. The file lacked a certification of completion. A review of Staff B's, Dietary Aide, employee file listed a hire date of 2/2/24. The file indicated a due date of the two-hour Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter Training as 8/29/24. The file lacked a certification of completion. Review of facility Abuse Prevention Policy, revised December 2016, stated: As part of the resident abuse prevention, the administration will: require staff training/orientation programs that include such topics as abuse prevention, identification and reporting of abuse, stress management, and handling verbally or physically aggressive resident behavior. In 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 before2023-11-16 · 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 observation, clinical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to follow standard practices and protocol for infection prevention during wound care for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #28). The facility reported a census of 33 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #28 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating intact cognitive response. The MDS further documented the resident had diagnoses including medically complex conditions, cancer, anemia, coronary artery disease, heart failure, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus and cellulitis of right axilla (armpit). The Care Plan for Resident #28 revised 10/9/23 with a focus for the area to the right axilla documented under interventions and tasks to follow wound protocol per order and treatment to the area at right axilla per order. Clinical record review of Physician Orders for Resident #28 revealed an order for Aquacel Ag Foam External Pad…
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 · D2023-09-05 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 policy review the facility failed to ensure assessments before and after outpatient hemodialysis treatments were completed for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis, (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Finding include: Resident #4 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #4 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility and limited assistance of one person with transfers, ambulation in room and toilet use. The MDS included diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), cancer, anemia, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease with dependence on renal dialysis (running blood through an external machine to rid the blood of toxins). The Care Plan with a revised date of 6/27/23 identified a need for hemodialysis on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. The Care Plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HUBKA, BONNIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/07/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 2 rows in the source record cover these 1 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.
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.
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 165384. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-21, 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.