Manor House Care Center
1212 South Stuart Street, Sigourney, IA 52591 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 55 certified beds · (641) 622-2142 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2023
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 — 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 fell from 3 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 | 7.6% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.3% | 4.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 2.4% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 4.2% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.7% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.6% | 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 | 5.4% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.9% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.5% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.6% | 73.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.54 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.43 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 10.1%CMS range 6.2–15.8 | 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 | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.60 | 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 55 beds and averages 42.1 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 13 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 3.63 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.44 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.07 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.86 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-05-15 · 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 observation, record review, resident and staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to notify the resident's provider of a change of condition that required physician intervention, and failed to consistently document the status of a resident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #145). The facility staff failed to notify the provider of the blood in Resident #145's catheter for 3 days that required an intervention in a hospital. The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #145 revealed a diagnosis of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) (a prostate enlargement that can cause urination difficulty) with lower urinary tract symptoms and identified an indwelling catheter that required moderate assistance of staff. The MDS documented the diagnosis of embolism with thrombosis of arteries of the lower extremities, and the prescribed use of blood thinners. Resident #145's brief interview for mental status (BIMS)…
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 before2026-06-25 · 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, record review, staff interviews, and the facility policy, the facility failed to keep a urinary catheter bag off the floor for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheters (Resident #42). The facility reported a census of 43 residents. Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #42 scored a 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition intact. The MDS indicated resident dependent with toileting hygiene and used an indwelling catheter. The MDS revealed medical diagnoses for renal insufficiency and neurogenic bladder. The MDS indicated the resident took a diuretic. The Care Plan revealed a focus area dated 3/5/26 for use of an indwelling catheter related to comfort for end of life and fluid overload. The interventions dated 3/5/26 indicated to ensure dignity bag remained in place, monitor tubing for kinks and leaks, and ensure tubing remains off the floor. The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-15 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, resident interviews, and the facility policy, the facility failed to provide a mechanical/ground texture meat to residents prescribed a mechanical soft or ground meat texture diet for 9 of 9 residents; and failed to provide the prescribe diet for 2 of 2 residents prescribed a 2 gram sodium diet ( Resident #20 and Resident #42) during a meal observation. The facility reported a census of 45 residents. Findings include: 1. The Facility Order Listing Report for Dietary Diet dated 5/12/25 at 1:20 PM revealed 7 residents prescribed a mechanical soft diet; 2 residents prescribed a ground meat only diet; and 2 residents (Resident #20 and Resident #42) prescribed a 2 gram sodium diet. The Facility Menu for Week 1 revealed a mechanical soft diet main course was 6 ground honey garlic meatballs, potato casserole, broccoli, frosted peach cake, and milk. The alternate menu for the mechanical soft diet was ham and bean soup, cornbread, and cottage cheese. The Facility Menu for Week 1 revealed the 2 gram sodium diet main course was 6…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Deficiency Text Not Available
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · 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
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Care Plan reflected edema (swelling) for 1 of 2 resident's reviewed for edema (Resident #30). The facility reported a census of 45 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/1/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #30 which included morbid obesity, high blood pressure, muscle weakness, and osteoarthritis (inflammation of the bone and joints). The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview of Mental Status(BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. The facility Care Plan Policy, dated 7/2023, stated the facility would complete a Comprehensive Care Plan after the comprehensive assessment of the resident. Provider Encounter Notes on 1/8/25, 2/5/25, 3/4/25, and 3/26/25 stated the resident had bilateral (referred to both sides) lower 1+ edema (swelling where an indentation or pit remained after applied pressure to the area with severity measured on a 1-4 scale with a 1+ grade indicating a barely visible indentation and a 4+ grade…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · 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
Based on clinical record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to consistently evidence of including residents in care conference meetings on a quarterly basis for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for Care Conferences (Resident #6). The facility reported a census of 45. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Annual assessment, dated 3/13/25, and Quarterly MDS, 4/14/25, revealed Resident #6 scored 15 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated intact cognition. The facility documentation lacked evidence facility staff invited the resident to participate in a care conference with the Care Plan revision on 3/31/25. On 05/13/25 at 1:48 PM, Resident #6 reported she did want to be included in Care Plan meetings, but had not been included in a long time. She reported she would have liked to get a copy of the Care Plan, but had not received a copy of her current plan. On 05/13/25 at 2:02 PM, the Social Worker reported they usually just touch base with Resident #6 and see if she wants the team to meet with her. The Social Worker explained…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-15 · 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
Based on clinical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff followed wound care orders for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #6) with a wound care observation. The facility census was 45. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment, dated 4/14/25, identified the resident had diagnoses of congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. The resident was dependent on staff for transfers, toilet use and lower body dressing. The resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which suggested an intact cognition. A Communication with Physician note, dated 4/25/25, included documentation of wound culture results of the left lower leg wound with moderate growth of Staphylococcus Aureus (an infectious organism). (facility) Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) updated. New orders received to start Bactrim DS (antibiotic) 1 tab every 12 hours for 7 days. Verbal order via (facility) ARNP to discontinue the Doxycycline (antibiotic). The Medication Administration Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, staff interviews, and the facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician after a resident lost over 13 pounds in a month for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #13). The facility reported a census of 45 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 scored a 1 out of 15 on the (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition severely impaired. The MDS indicated the resident needed supervision or touching assistance with eating. The MDS indicated a loss of 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in the last months. The MDS revealed resident received a mechanically altered diet- require change in texture of food or liquids (example- pureed, thickened liquids). The MDS revealed diagnoses for unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance/psychotic disturbance/mood disturbance/anxiety; and malnutrition (protein, calorie), risk of malnutrition. 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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain Occupational Therapy(OT) services in a timely manner for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for specialized rehabilitative services(Resident #30). The resident reported a census of 45 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set(MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/1/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #30 which included morbid obesity, muscle weakness, and osteoarthritis(inflammation of the bone and joints). The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview of Mental Status(BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Provider Encounter Notes on 1/8/25, 2/5/25, 3/4/25, and 3/26/25 stated the resident had bilateral(referred to both sides) lower 1+ edema(swelling where an indentation or pit remained after applied pressure to the area with severity measured on a 1-4 scale with a 1+ grade indicating a barely visible indentation and a 4+ grade indicating a deep indentation which took a considerable time to fade). A 4/30/25 provider Encounter Note stated the resident had 2-3+ lower…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · 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 clinical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff followed infection prevention and control policies to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident #6) with an observation of wound care. The facility reported a census of 45. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment, dated 4/14/25, identified the resident had diagnoses of congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. The resident was dependent on staff for transfers, toilet use and lower body dressing. The resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which suggested an intact cognition. A Communication with Physician note, dated 4/25/25, included documentation of wound culture results of the left lower leg wound with moderate growth of Staphylococcus Aureus (an infectious organism). (facility) Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) updated. New orders received to start Bactrim DS (antibiotic) 1 tab every 12…
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 · E2024-07-18 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to offer the pneumococcal vaccine at recommended times to 4 out of 5 residents reviewed for pneumococcal vaccinations (Resident #11, #13, #16, #22). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #11's Immunization record stated the resident received the PCV23 (a type of pneumococcal vaccine) on 10/28/10 and the PCV13(a type of pneumococcal vaccine) on 1/27/17. The record stated the resident was [AGE] years old. 2. Resident #13's Immunization record stated the resident received the PCV23 pneumococcal vaccine on 1/23/08 and the PCV13 vaccine on 7/23/15. The record stated the resident was [AGE] years old. 3. Resident #16's Immunization record stated the resident received PCV13 vaccine on 4/20/15 and the PCV23 pneumococcal vaccine on 5/23/16. The record stated the resident was [AGE] years old. 4. Resident #22's Immunization record stated she resident received PCV23 pneumococcal vaccine on 9/6/07 and 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 · D2024-07-18 · 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
Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to intervene when several days elapsed without a bowel movement (BM) for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for a change in condition (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 6/18/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #4 which included schizophrenia, mild intellectual disabilities, and pressure ulcer. The MDS listed a Brief Interview for Mental Status(BIMs) score as 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. 5/6/24 Care Plan entries stated the resident received antipsychotic medication and directed staff to monitor for adverse reactions to antipsychotics including digestive issues and constipation. 7/1/24 Care Plan entries stated the resident received antidepressant medication and directed staff to monitor for adverse reactions to antidepressant therapy including constipation and fecal impaction. The resident's Bowel Movement record lacked documentation the resident had a BM on the following days: 7/1/24…
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 · E2023-07-13 · 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
Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from neglect when 24 of 24 residents (Resident #104, #105, #106, #107, #108, #109, #110, #111, #112, #54, #39, #14, #22, #113, #20, #15, #5, #31, #17, #114, #18, #115, #13, and #14) did not receive their scheduled medications including, narcotics, insulin, antibiotics, blood pressure, psychotropic, respiratory and blood thinner medications on 7/4/2022 by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who was their nurse from 2:00 PM to 6:00 AM on 7/5/22. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: Record review of a document created by the facility titled, Medications Documented as Administered by Staff A on 7/4/2022, documented the following 24 residents failed to receive the following medications on 7/4/22 while Staff A was working. 1. Resident #104 Flomax 0.4 mg Levemir 100 unit/ml 35 units Metformin HCI 500 mg Metoprolol Tartrate 50 mg Cephalexin Capsule 250 mg Citalopram Hydrobromide Tablet 20 mg Colace Capsule 100 mg 2. Resident #105 Donepezil 5 mg…
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 before2023-07-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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
Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure 24 of 24 residents (Resident #104, #105, #106, #107, #108, #109, #110, #111, #112, #54, #39, #14, #22, #113, #20, #15, #5, #31, #17, #114, #18, #115, #13, and #14) were provided with professional standards of nursing care on 7/4/2022 from 2:00 PM to 6:00 AM, by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who documented medications were given, but during review of video footage and a facility timeline was found to dispense and dispose of resident medications instead of administering the medications to residents. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: Record review of a document created by the facility titled, Medications Documented as Administered by Staff A on 7/4/2022, documented the following 24 residents failed to receive medications on 7/4/22 while Staff A was working: Resident #104, #105, #106, #107, #108, #109, #110, #111, #112, #54, #39, #14, #22, #113, #20, #15, #5, #31, #17, #114, #18, #115, #13, and #14. Record review of an undated document created by 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.
- No harm found · B2023-07-13 · tag F0644 — patternCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, facility policy, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resubmission of the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) following change in medical diagnoses for one of one residents reviewed for PASARR (Resident #39). The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #39 dated 4/4/23 revealed the resident scored 11 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS included a psychotic disorder diagnosis for the resident. The MDS documented that the resident had taken in the last seven days the following medication types; antipsychotic, and antidepressant. On 4/22/22 a diagnosis of PSYCHOTIC DISORDER WITH DELUSIONS DUE TO KNOWN PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITION had been added to the resident's medical diagnoses. The Care Plan, target date 4/11/23, revealed, Resident #39 has a psychosocial well-being problem r/t (related to) Depression and Mood. One of the interventions documented,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LEGACY HEALTHCARE — 89 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 88 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 88; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SHABAT, MENACHEM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| LEGACY HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| BEASLEY, KARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| BEHOUNEK, LINSEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| BORCHERDING, JENNY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| BRUBAKER, ALISHA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| BURKEN, SHERI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| FRIEDENBERG, LAURA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| HEDBERG, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| HENNAGER, CHRISTINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| HEYING, LARINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| HOUSTON, MINDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| JAEGER, KRYSTLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| KNUTSON, MICHELE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| LARSON, MELISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| MCCLURE, DOROTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| OTTERBECK, PATRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| RAJCHENBACH, CHAIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| SCOTT, KATHLEEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| SEU, JOSHUA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| SHEAR, KILEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| STAUDT, SANDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| VAN PATTEN-RICHARD, JULIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| VAN VEGHEL, ELIZABETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| WEI, SHIPENG | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| WIERSCHEM, BOBBIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| WOOD, ROSEMARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| WRIGHT, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| FRIEDMAN, BRIAN | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/03/2012 |
| RAJCHENBACH, AVRUM | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/28/2008 |
| RAJCHENBACH, RIVKA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/28/2008 |
| SHABAT, AHUVA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/03/2012 |
| CASCADE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| CASCADE CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| CCG GORGONA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA PROPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA SUB HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GPN FAMILY TRUST U/A/D 4/28/08 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/03/2025 |
| MN8 RH HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 43 rows in the source record cover these 40 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.
This home reported $687K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 165325. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-15, 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.