Cedar Manor Nursing Home
1200 Mulberry Street, Tipton, IA 52772 · Non profit - Other · 54 certified beds · (563) 886-2133 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 4 actual-harm citations
- 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
- the CMS record shows $32,289 in federal fines (most recent 2024-05-01)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 21.0% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.9% | 4.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.6% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.3% | 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 | 3.1% | 3.8% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.2% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.4% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 34.0% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.0% | 19.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.2% | 73.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.95 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.93 | 2.08 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
53.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 53 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 53.4%CMS range 45.0–64.6 | 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 | 9.5%CMS range 6.3–13.9 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.6%CMS range 4.2–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.70 | 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 54 beds and averages 46.1 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.16 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.91 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 3.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.40 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.78 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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 · G2024-05-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly document assessments for two of eight residents reviewed (Residents #2 and #3). The facility failed to document Resident #2's weekly wound assessments. In addition, the facility failed to document the time Resident #3's seizure lasted and failed to document follow-up assessments. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #2 required substantial/maximal staff assistance with toilet use and lower body dressing. Resident #2 required total staff assistance with putting on and removing footwear. The MDS included diagnoses of chronic congestive heart failure, renal insufficiency (kidney failure) and diabetes mellitus. The Incident Report dated 3/19/24 at 11:39 AM reflected while in the dining room,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, resident, family and staff interview and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure the safety of 2 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #1 and #5). Resident #5 fell while transferring with a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA). The fall resulted in 3 fractured ribs and a hemothorax (a condition where blood collects in the pleural space, the hollow area between lungs and rib cage). In addition, the facility failed to determine the cause of Resident #1's a facial bruise. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings included: 1. Resident #5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #5 required substantial/maximal staff assistance with showers and walking up to 50 feet. In addition, Resident #5 required total assistance from staff for toilet use, lower body dressing, and putting on and taking off footwear. The MDS included diagnoses of chronic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2023-12-07 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff, resident, and Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to administer the correct medication to 1 out of 7 residents reviewed, when a resident received another resident's medication in error (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings Include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #1, dated 10/25/23, listed diagnoses of Atrial Fibrillation (Afib), coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, and hypertension (high blood pressure). The MDS reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. The Care Plan for Resident # 1 dated 11/2/2023, identified altered cardiovascular status related to congestive heart failure and Atrial fibrillation. The Care Plan reflected interventions to include: a. Monitor for shortness of breath (SOB) and report if needed. b. Monitor vital signs per facility protocol. Notify Physician of significant abnormalities. c. Monitor/document/report needed any signs or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2023-06-29 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, observation, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer for a resident identified at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and failed to perform hand hygiene during wound care for one out of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #8). The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings Include: The MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment identifies the definition of Pressure Ulcers: Stage I - An intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have a visible blanching; in dark skin tones only, it may appear with persistent blue or purple hues. Stage II - A Partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough (dead tissue, usually cream or yellow in color). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister. Stage III - Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle…
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 before2025-11-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, facility policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a dignified eating experience for six of six resident's (Resident #21, 32, 38, 41, 43, 50) who ate their plated meals while they remained on a serving tray, The facility reported a census of 50 residents.Findings include:During an observation on 11/17/2025 at 12:16 PM, six residents in the Assisted Dining Room (ADR) ate their meal, while it sat on a tray. During an observation on 11/18/25 at 11:58 AM, all residents seated at the tables in the ADR were served their meal on trays. Their plate left on the tray while they ate. During an observation on 11/19/2025 at 12:15 PM, six out of the six residents in the ADR sat at a table while their plated meals sat on the tray. Staff C and Staff D, Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) sat and fed two of the six residents. On 11/20/2025 at 9:59 AM, Staff C, CNA reported Resident's #21, 32, 38, 41, 43, and 50 ate in the ADR on 11/17/25, 11/18/25 and 11/19/25. She confirmed all the residents in the ADR ate their meals off a plate which sat on a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, equipment manual review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to transport residents in the hallways in a safe manner for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #17 and Resident #53) reviewed for safety. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.Findings include:1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #17 dated 10/7/25 documented diagnoses of other idiopathic scoliosis in the lumbar region, atrial fibrillation, and Alzheimer's disease. The resident scored 3 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #17 assessed dependent on a wheelchair for mobility and dependent on staff for transfers.During an observation on 11/19/2025 at 1:44 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) pushed the Resident #17 in her wheelchair from a table in a common area to the dining room for an activity. During the transport, Resident #17's right foot rested on a foot pedal, while the left foot dropped down between the right pedal…
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 · D2025-11-20 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, review of resident council minutes, facility policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to answer call lights within 15 minutes to meet resident needs for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #5 and Resident #49) reviewed for call lights. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.Findings include:1. Resident #5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented an admission date of 6/05/24. The list of diagnoses included heart failure, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms (enlarged prostate gland presses on the urethra), and pain. The MDS indicated Resident #5 utilized a wheelchair for mobility, dependent on staff for transfers and toileting hygiene. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 11 out of 15 indicated a moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #5's Care Plan, dated 9/17/25, revealed the following Focus area's:a. I have an ADL (Activities of…
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 · D2024-10-03 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to provide the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) to one out of three resident in a timely fashion (Resident#16). The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Findings include: The Clinical Census sheet for Resident #16 identified the start of the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) services on 5/10/24 and ended on 5/28/24. A Progress Note dated 5/28/24 at 10:59 AM revealed Resident#16 on SNF level of care until 5/29/24. The Progress Notes dated 5/27/24 and 5/26/24 did not include documentation regarding communication with the resident or her responsible party regarding the discharge from SnF services and the right to appeal. The CMS 10123 (Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage or NOMNC) form signed by Resident#16 responsible party reflected a dated of 5/29/24. The CMS 10055 (SNFABN) form signed by Resident#16 responsible party reflected a dated of 5/29/24. On 10/2/14 at 3:50 PM the Administrator reported she expected the Advanced Beneficiary…
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 · D2024-10-03 · 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling catheter collection bag placed in a dignity cover, with the bag and bag remained off the floor to prevent urinary tract infections for one of one resident (Resident #39) reviewed with an indwelling catheter. The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], list of diagnoses included: congestive heart failure, dementia and sacral pressure ulcer. A Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 10 out of 15 indicated a moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS identified Resident #39 used an indwelling catheter (for urine collection). Review of admission Orders, dated 9/23/24, revealed an order admission for hospice. The orders also included an Indwelling Foley catheter for comfort. The Care Plan, dated 9/30/24, included a Focus area to address Indwelling Foley Catheter: 16F (French - catheter size) for comfort r/t Terminal condition. Interventions included: Check…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-01 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, facility policy review, resident, family, and staff interview, the facility failed to treat two of eight residents reviewed with dignity and respect (Residents #1 and #5). The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder and unspecified atrial fibrillation (an abnormal heart rhythm). Resident #1 required substantial/maximal assistance with oral hygiene, toilet use, and showers. Resident #1 required total assistance from staff for lower body dressing, putting on and taking off footwear. The Care Plan Focus revised 4/16/24 identified Resident #1 had a problem of impaired cognitive function related to dementia and forgetfulness. The Health Status Note dated 4/15/24 at 9:38 PM indicated a certified nurse aide (CNA) notified the nurse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-01 · 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 observation, record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to update Care Plans for three of eight residents reviewed. (Residents #1, #2, and #4). The facility failed to update the residents Care Plans after the staff discovered Resident #1 had an injury of unknown origin. After Resident #2 sustained burns to her thighs after she spilled coffee on her lap. Then after Resident #4 had a choking episode which required the Heimlich maneuver (first-aid treatment used to try to remove a blockage from someone's airway). The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2, indicating severely impaired cognition. Resident #1 required substantial/maximal assistance with oral hygiene, toilet use, and showers. Resident #1 required total assistance from staff for lower body dressing, putting on and taking off footwear. The MDS included…
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 · E2023-06-29 · tag F0800 — patternProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview the facility failed to transport leftover food items from the East Kitchenette down the hallway to the Main Kitchen in accordance with professional standards of practice for infection control and food safety, by not properly covering the food transported. The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings Include: 1. On 6/26/23 at 12:09 PM, the Dietary Staff observed transferring leftover food from the East Kitchenette down the facility hallway to the Main Kitchen on a three shelf wheeled cart. The leftover food containers noted to be uncovered with kitchen utensils still in the containers. Once inside the Main Kitchen the Dietary Staff discussed with the [NAME] about the leftover food. 2. On 6/27/23 at 12:11 PM, the East Kitchenette leftover food observed being returned to the kitchen by Staff A, Dietary Staff. The leftover food noted uncovered on a cart and transferred down the facility hallway to the Main Kitchen. Outside of the Main Kitchen, Staff A asked about the leftover food and what the process was when the leftovers were…
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 · E2023-06-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and Dietary documentation review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced during the brief Initial Tour of the kitchen and follow up visits to the kitchen. The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings Include: 1. On 6/26/23 at 9:53 AM, a brief Initial Tour of the Main Kitchen revealed the following concerns: a. A Vulcan gas stove with build up grim within the six burners of the stove. The back wall ledge of the stove approximately 3 inches in height noted with visible grime and grease across the length of wall. b. A Vulcan oven next to the stove had a build up of grime vertically streaked down the right side panel of the oven. The temperature dial, all oven door crevices observed to have grime and dust build up. c. The Vulcan oven and an adjoining table with a small steam oven had an open bottom that showed visible pieces of food and dirt on the floor that had not been swept up. d. Across from the Vulcan range and ovens, a food…
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 · D2023-06-29 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, observations, resident and staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to report one out of one allegation of abuse to the state agency (Resident # 96). The faculty reported a census of 44 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #96 dated 10/20/22, listed diagnoses of congestive heart failure, and respiratory failure. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. The Incident Report dated 12/12/22 at 9:00 PM, reflected Resident #96 reported a Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) hit her in the face with a closed fist. The Incident Report revealed the Administrator signed the document on 12/13/22. On 06/26/23 at 2:30 PM, Resident #96 stated, Staff F, Certified Nurses Aid, (CNA) punched her in the face. Resident #96 revealed that hurt her pride, hurt her face, and she felt disrespected. On 6/26/23 at 2:30 PM, Resident #96 hands shook and she appeared upset as she described the incident On 06/28/23 at 11:14 AM, Staff G, CNA stated she knew Resident #96…
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 · D2023-06-29 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interviews and facility manual review the facility staff failed to complete a Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment when a resident developed a pressure area for 1 out of 1 residents reviewed with pressure sores (Resident #8) and when the same resident had a significant weight loss for 1 out of 12 residents reviewed for weight loss (Resident #8). The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings Include: The MDS Assessment for Resident #8 Dated 4/13/23, included diagnoses of non- Alzheimer's dementia, malnutrition, and altered mental status. The MDS revealed Resident #8 lacked pressure ulcers/wounds at the time of the MDS, and identified her risk for pressure ulcers. The MDS reflected Resident #8's weight at 137.8 pounds. The Skin/Wound Note dated 6/6/2023 at 4:21 PM, identified Resident #8 presented with Stage 2 Pressure Ulcer open area on buttocks 2.3 centimeters (cm) by 0.9 cm by 0.1 cm deep. No drainage from the wound. The surrounding skin appeared pink. The wound bed contained granulation tissue…
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
$32,289 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $24,099 — penalty dated 2024-05-01
- $8,190 — penalty dated 2023-12-07
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| FORD, CATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2020 |
| JEDLICKA, DALE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/05/2025 |
| SLOMA-WEBER, HEATHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2024 |
| JORGENSEN, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/09/2025 |
| PELZER, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/07/2025 |
| SALRIN, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/05/2025 |
| SUCHOMEL, SUE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/07/2025 |
| CLARENCE NURSING HOME INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/10/2025 |
| GAMA, JULIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/30/2022 |
| KNIPE, TERESA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/13/2024 |
| MILLER, BART | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/12/2017 |
| PAUL, RHONDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/26/1984 |
| SCHUETT, CLAYTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/04/2022 |
| TJADEN, JASON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/10/2025 |
| VALET, CALLIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2012 |
| BCG HOLDINGS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL BCG LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| ECSI INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| IOWA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| ONR NATIONAL SPEECH PATHOLOGY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| PM ACQUISITION LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2019 |
| POTTER AND BRANT PLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2014 |
| MCKAY, DEBORAH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/28/2005 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 25 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.
10 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.
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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165599. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-20, 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.