Karen Acres Care Center
3605 Elm Drive, Urbandale, IA 50322 · For profit - Corporation · 35 certified beds · (515) 276-4969 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 4 to 5 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 | 15.9% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.0% | 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 | 2.9% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.0% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.1% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.6% | 25.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.5% | 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 | 6.1% | 73.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 12.0% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.6% | 13.2% | 12.0% | 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.
46.8% 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 78 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 53.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 41 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% 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 | 46.8%CMS range 37.5–57.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 7.6–15.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 53.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 53.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 51.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 4.2% | 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 | 8.3%CMS range 4.8–13.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 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 35 beds and averages 30.3 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.27 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.20 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 3.04 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.36 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-22 · 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, hospital record review, family and staff interviews, and facility protocol review, it was found that for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for assessment and intervention (Res #3), the facility failed to complete accurate daily assessments; transcribe and administer medications per provider orders; recognize and assess a change in bowel patterns; follow the facility protocol for a bowel regimen; and completely and accurately document fluid intake for a resident on a fluid restriction. The facility reported a census of 29. Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment of Resident #3 dated 1/30/26 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 which indicated cognition intact. The MDS reflected the resident to be frequently incontinent of bowel. The MDS documented diagnoses which included heart failure and constipation. The MDS recorded the resident experienced pain during the 5-day look back period and received scheduled and as needed pain medications as well as non-medication pain interventions. The MDS recorded the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow the Care Plan for proper and safe transfer for 1 of 4 residents reviewed, Due to Resident's (Resident #3) increased weakness Resident #3 had to be lowered to the floor during attempted improper transfer. The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented Resident #3 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13, indicating cognitively intact, with diagnoses including Atrial Fibrillation, Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, Thyroid Disorder, Osteoarthritis, Cervical Spinal Stenosis (narrowing of spinal canal, causing pressure on the spinal cord and nerves to the neck region of the spine), Bipolar Disorder, Depression, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Review of Care Plan revised on 9/2/25 revealed Resident #3 has an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care deficit with interventions including all transfers with use…
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 before2025-06-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow the Care Plan for proper and safe transfer for 1 of 1 residents reviewed, resulting in a fall (Resident #27). The facility reported a census of 28 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment of Resident #27 dated 3/5/25 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented the resident had suffered no falls since the last assessment. The Care Plan, last reviewed 6/9/25, identified a Focus Area of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Self Care Performance. The Care Plan directed staff that Resident #27 required assistance with transfers, and ambulation with a gait belt (a belt worn around the resident's waist to assist the caregiver to provide support and stability) and a walker. The Care Plan identified an additional Focus Area of high risk for falls related to history of frequent falls. Resident #27 score 75 on the Morse Fall Scale (a clinical tool used to assess a resident's risk 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 · E2024-07-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain uncluttered hallways to promote a safe and homelike environment for one of three hallways. The facility also used a shower room for equipment storage. The facility reported a resident census of twenty eight. Findings include: On 7/5/24 at 9:50 am, the 300 Hallway was noted to be very cluttered. One full side of the hallway had multiple wheelchairs, full body and standing mechanical lifts and a dining chair. On the opposite side of the hall, one room had an isolation cart outside of the doorway. The doorway to room [ROOM NUMBER], room of Resident #22, was noted to be partially obstructed by the wheels of a wheelchair. The Minimum Data Set of Resident #22, dated 6/19/24 documented the resident needed supervision or touching assistance for wheelchair locomotion up to 150 feet. On 7/7/24 at 9:22 am, the Director of Therapy stated Resident #22 generally had a staff member assist him when propelling his wheelchair but…
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 · E2024-07-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, menu review, and staff interview, the facility failed to serve the appropriate menu for two of two meals observed. The facility also failed to follow a standard pureed process for two of two pureed food prep observations. Findings include: The facility's menu for lunch on 7/6/24 identified the following items to be served to diets. #6 Scoop (sc) Tator tot casserole 8 ounces (oz) Serving Toss salad/dressing 4 oz Serving chilled fruit 1 each bread/[NAME] 1 Square (SQ) Smores Brownies 8 oz Milk Continuous observation of lunch preparation and service began on 7/6/24 at 10:50 AM. Staff E, Cook, placed two 4 oz servings of tator tot casserole into the blender. She blended the casserole. When done with the puree process, Staff used spatula, placed servings into clean pan, and placed into oven. No measurement of the volume of pureed casserole was done. Staff E stated she placed two servings of peaches in bowl which was prepared prior to observation beginning. She placed the peaches in the blender.…
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 before2024-07-07 · 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 observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary practices by improperly storing resident food. The facility reported a census of 27 residents. Findings include: On 7/05/24 at 7:30 AM, a kitchen observation identified the following findings: A True refrigerator contained: 1) An undated, previously opened jar of mayonnaise. 2) An unlabeled bowl of meat and vegetables. 3) An unlabeled, undated tub of a chopped orange item. 4) An unlabeled, undated, and partially uncovered bowl of chopped cantaloupe. 5) An unlabeled, undated tub of a shredded orange item. A True freezer contained: 1) An unlabeled, undated bag of meat. 2) An unlabeled, undated block of meat wrapped in Saran wrap. A shelf located in the kitchen contained an undated, previously opened jar of peanut butter. On 7/07/24 at 10:08 AM, the Administrator stated food should be labeled, dated, and covered when stored. A policy titled Dining Services Storage dated June 2018 indicated foods held in refrigerator or other storage areas shall be appropriately covered,…
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 before2024-07-07 · 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 resident clinical record, staff and family interviews, policy review and video evidence, the facility failed to protect a resident from abuse when a certified nursing assistant utilized a personal smartphone to video record a resident (Resident #4) and distribute the recording on a social media site and labeled the video with the resident's name. The facility reported a census of 28 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident#4 revealed a diagnosis of dementia, depression, anxiety and chronic kidney disease and required the assistance of staff for personal hygiene, toileting and dressing needs. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which suggested a moderate cognitive impairment and disorganized thinking with difficulty keeping track of what is being said. The Care Plan directed staff to monitor, document, and report a change in behavior, mood and cognition to include hallucinations and delusions, social isolation, suicidal thoughts,…
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 before2024-07-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement infection control practices to prevent cross contamination of invasive medical equipment for one of one blood glucose test observations. Facility staff also failed to decrease possible spread of infection for one of one resident reviewed for a urinary catheter (Resident#28) . The facility reported a census of 27 residents. Findings include: 1. On 7/05/24 at 7:22 AM, Resident #28 was observed sitting in her wheelchair with her indwelling catheter drainage bag hanging on the underside wheelchair frame and the tubing lying on the floor. On 7/5/24 at 8:31 AM, a second observation revealed the resident's indwelling catheter tubing was still lying on the floor. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated completely intact cognition. It included diagnoses of Cancer, hemiparesis (one-sided 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 · Dcited before2024-03-12 · 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
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat each resident in a dignified manner for 3 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #2, #5 and #9). The facility reported a census of 28 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) of Resident #2 dated 1/23/24 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease. The Care Plan of Resident #2, revision date 1/8/24 identified a focus area of Impaired Cognitive Function related to Alzheimer's disease. On 3/11/24 at 11:42 am Staff F, a staff member who requested to stay anonymous, stated that on an earlier date, she had been in the room of a resident nearby the room of Resident #2. She stated Staff D, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) was in the room of Resident #2 providing cares to the resident. She stated she heard Staff D tell Resident #2 to shut up. She further reported she has heard staff members be rude to various residents a number of times and some of the instances have…
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 before2023-10-12 · 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 facility policy review the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards by not labeling foods that were open with open dates and did not practice appropriate hand hygiene by touching food and contaminated objects without hand hygiene and not changing gloves. The facility reported a census of 29 residents. Findings include: On 10/9/23 from 11:30 AM through 12:15 PM a continuous observation during the initial kitchen tour revealed: a. Dry storage had three 1 pound bags of gelatin open and undated. b. Dry storage had two 16 oz bags of chips open and undated. c. Dry storage had a 4 oz bag of corn / rice puffs open and undated. d. Dry storage had a freezer bag of cake mix open and undated. e. Dry storage had 32 oz. thickened dairy beverage open 03/08/23 open and unrefrigerated f. Dry storage had two 46 oz. thickened orange juice expiration date 2/9/23 g. Dry storage had two 46 oz. thickened orange juice expiration 8/5/23 h. Dry storage had a plastic storage container of cereal open and undated. i. Dry storage had 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 before2023-10-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, facility documentation and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the facility failed to handle a urinary catheter bag and tubing with appropriate infection control standards of practice for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #17). The facility reported a census of 29 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) of Resident #17 dated 9/22/23 identified a BIMS score of 11 out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS coded the presence of an indwelling catheter. The MDS documented diagnoses that included stroke, hemiparesis (paralysis of one side of the body), urine retention, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. The Care Plan dated 10/4/23 documented the resident to have an indwelling catheter related to neurogenic bladder. Observation began on 10/11/23 at 11:28 am and included the following: -Staff A, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) and Staff B, CNA stated they would empty the drainage bag and transfer the resident from recliner to wheelchair to go to lunch. Observed both staff members put…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EVEN, CRYSTAL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 07/01/2013 |
| LANGE, RANDALL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 10/01/1998 |
| BOOKER, JANYIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/20/2025 |
| DAYTON, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/17/2021 |
| HARNED, PAMELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/20/2016 |
| MOULTON, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/19/2015 |
| OCONNER, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2015 |
| WALTERSDORF, MYRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/22/2024 |
| BCG HOLDINGS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| BLUE STONE THERAPY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| CARESERV TECHNOLOGIES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/02/2018 |
| CATTAIL BCG LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| DENMAN CPA LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2011 |
| ECSI INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| GRX HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2018 |
| HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| IOWA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
11 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 $124K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165460. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-11, 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.