The Vinton Lutheran Home
1301 Second Avenue South, Vinton, IA 52349 · Non profit - Corporation · 61 certified beds · (319) 472-4751 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.2% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.3% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.2% | 4.2% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.6% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.1% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.1% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.6% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.4% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.66 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.22 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.6%CMS range 6.7–17.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 95.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 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 61 beds and averages 47.6 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.12 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.97 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 3.42 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.40 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.95 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-10-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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, clinical record review, facility investigation, manufacturers user manuals, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to operate a full body mechanical lift appropriately during resident cares, and failed to use the appropriate slings for the mechanical lift for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #1, #2, #3) reviewed for safe transfers. This failure resulted in an immediate jeopardy when Lift #1's (brand specific) spreader bar had over a 1 centimeter (CM) gap between the hook cradle and the rubber stopper. When staff failed to clear Resident #1 bottom over a bed wedge cushion, the lift sling strap lifted up off the spreader bar hook, resulting in Resident #1 falling to the floor with a 3 - 4 CM (centimeter) gash to the back of her head. Resident #1 was hospitalized on [DATE] with a subdural hemorrhage and intraventricular hemorrhage (a collection of blood that accumulates between the inner layer of the skull and the surface of the brain). On 9/26/25, Lift #1 was utilized for 6…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-12-04 · 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 observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision while transporting a resident in the wheelchair that resulted in injury for one of three residents' reviewed. (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings include: The MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 10/10/2024 revealed Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment, required substantial/maximum assistance of staff for transfers from one surface to another, and used a wheelchair for locomotion. The resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, osteoarthritis and hypertension. Resident #1's Care Plan revealed the resident required assistance with ADL's (activities of daily living) related to cognitive decline, created on 2/2/2021. The Care Plan instructed staff to transfer the resident with an E-Z stand (mechanical) lift, provide her with a wheelchair for locomotion, and allow her to self propel. On 8/2/2022 the Care Plan identified the resident had a fall risk related to incontinence, impaired daily decision…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to keep a resident's care plan updated for falls for 1 of 3 residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 47 residents.Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #1 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The MDS identified the resident with diagnoses which included fractured right pubis (pelvis bone), diabetes, obesity and kidney failure. The resident required substantial assistance from staff to complete activities of daily living. He required substantial assistance for showering, standing and toileting, and used a walker or wheelchair to move about. The resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 12/15 which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment, and had a fall in the last month prior to admission, entry, or reentry. Review of the resident's progress notes revealed the following falls: a. On 11/15/25 at 6:30 am, the staff found 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 · Ecited before2025-04-10 · 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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper food handling practices and further failed to ensure the kitchen and equipment was kept clean and sanitary to reduce the risk of contamination and food-borne illness. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: On 4/7/25 at 9:55 AM during the initial tour of the facility kitchen, the following sanitation concerns were noted relating to the potential risk of contamination and food-borne illness: a. The walk-in cooler was noted to have 2 large trays of white rice on a shelf at the back of the cooler that were not covered or dated. b. The 2 large trays of white rice were located in the walk-in cooler on a shelf beneath a ham covered with plastic wrap, a large beef roast in a plastic cover and roast beef slices in a foil pan. c. The walk-in freezer was noted to have a plastic tub of chicken pot pie filling with the plastic wrap pulled back and the chicken pot pie filling exposed to the cold with frost/ice covering the top of it. On 4/7/25 at 9:55 AM during the initial…
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 · D2025-04-10 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a psychotropic medication (a medication that affects a person's mental state) gradual dose reduction (GDR) was attempted or declined with a physician rational for 2 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #19 and #25). The facility reported a census of 47 Residents. Findings included: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, indicating severe cognitive impairment. It included diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, heart failure, depression, dementia, diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, and anxiety disorder. It also revealed the resident was independent with eating, toileting, personal hygiene, and transfers but required moderate assistance with bathing. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) included physician's orders for: a) Seroquel 12.5 milligrams (mg) daily related to Alzheimer's disease with late onset b) Sertraline 50 mg; give 1.5 tabs (75…
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 · D2025-04-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to document oxygen tubing changes as ordered to protect against potential infections for 1 of 1 residents reviewed on oxygen (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings Include: The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 indicating intact cognition. The MDS revealed resident's diagnoses included fibromyalgia, anxiety, venous insufficiency, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, acute embolism and thrombosis, pulmonary hypertension, myocardial infarction, dyspnea (shortness of breath), pneumonia, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. The resident was coded as independent for eating, and requiring maximal staff assistance for toileting, bathing, personal hygiene, and transfers. The MDS documented resident was short of breath with exertion and used oxygen. In an observation on 4/8/25 at 1:41 PM, an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-04 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, and observations the facility failed to follow their policy and procedures regarding intravenous therapy for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #2 had diagnoses which included pneumonia, septicemia, and diabetes mellitus. The resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 out of 15, which indicated she had intact cognitive ability. The resident received daily antibiotics via a peripheral inserted central catheter (PICC line). Review of the Care Plan dated 10/17/24 informed the staff the resident had dehydration and required fluid maintenance related to pneumonia. The Care Plan directed the staff to administer intravenous antibiotic therapy once daily for severe sepsis. Review of a Progress Note dated 11/3/24 at 9:00 pm revealed Staff E-RN attempted 3 times to place a peripheral intravenous line in…
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 · D2024-04-22 · 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, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to take a resident to the restroom timely to prevent his brief from soiling his clothing for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #46). The facility further failed to ensure resident's fingernails were cleaned and trimmed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #21). The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #46 dated 3/28/24 included diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia and anxiety. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) documented a score of 1, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. It documented the need for substantial/maximal assistance with toileting with the helper completing more than half of the effort. The Care Plan focus area for Resident #46, initiated 9/27/23, documented he was at risk for pressure ulcer/skin breakdown related to frequent urine incontinence. A section titled falls documented risk related to incontinence. An area titled ADL (Activities of Daily Living) function noted the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-22 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview the facility failed to complete a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #8). The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS listed diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and Bipolar Disorder. A document with a mailing date of 6/28/19 titled Status Change Review Outcome documented a current PASRR Level II Summary of Finding report, dated 4/30/19 remained valid for the resident's nursing facility stay. The summary report on Page 6 revealed the resident was approved for 150 days of nursing facility care. The facility lacked documentation that a follow up PASRR was completed. On 04/15/24 at 10:38 AM the resident stated she lived here because of her mental illness. She could do a lot of things independently but needed…
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 before2024-04-22 · 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, clinical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to reassess the effectiveness of fall interventions and to modify the resident's care plan to meet the resident's needs for 1 of 1 Residents reviewed (Resident #4). The Care Plan failed to identify specific staff interventions to mitigate future falls. The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Findings include: The re-admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #4 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS ) score of 10 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the resident had diagnoses of fracture of left femur, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, and malnutrition. The MDS documented the resident required substantial/maximal assistance for mobility and walking was not attempted due to medical condition or safety concerns. The Care Plan initiated 4/24/14 with a target date of 4/10/24 identified the resident at risk for falls. The Care Plan informed staff the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-22 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to notify the pharmacist of a resident's admission in a timely manner to complete a drug regimen review (DRR) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #33). The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Findings include: The MDS for Resident #33 dated 4/1/24 revealed diagnoses of anxiety disorder, depression, and diabetes mellitus II. The entry MDS was dated 11/6/23 and the Medicare 5 day admission MDS was dated 11/13/23. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented escitalopram Oxalate 20 mg for depression (11/7/23) and buspirone HCl 10 mg for anxiety (12/6/23). A document titled Doctor's Order Sheet, dated 11/6/23 at 9:00 AM, documented medications were listed on the resident's transfer sheet and was signed by the resident's provider. A document titled Order Summary Report from the resident's prior facility, dated 11/2/23 at 11:53 AM, revealed the resident was prescribed 24 medications at the time of the transfer to this facility. Each page was signed by the Director 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 · Dcited before2024-04-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure they were not serving expired food items to reduce the risk of contamination and food-borne illness. The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Findings include: On 4/15/24 at 9:16 AM, the initial tour of the facility kitchen with the Dining Services Director (DSM), revealed the following: a. 5 unopened boxes of fudge cream icing mix with an expiration date of 1/18/24 b. 2 unopened boxes of cinnamon streusel topping mix with an expiration date of 1/4/24 c. 1 unopened box of cinnamon streusel topping mix with an expiration date of 1/14/24 d. 10 cans of evaporated milk with an expiration date of 3/28/24 e. 1 opened box of grape nuts cereal with a resident's name on it and an expiration date of 1/1/23 f. 1 unopened box of grape nuts cereal with an expiration date of 2/23/24 g. 12 unopened quart containers of half and half with an expiration date of 3/28/24 h. 2 unopened containers of whipping cream with an expiration date of 3/31/24 i. 1 unopened container and 1 opened container of whipping…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, staff and resident interviews and observations the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse within 24 hours or the next business day for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 50. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 11 out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident required limited assistance of 1 staff for transfers, ambulation and hygiene. The resident had diagnoses which included hemiplegia, history of fractured left femur, history of falls and syncope. Review of the resident's Care Plan dated 1/6/22 informed the staff the resident is hard of hearing and wears hearing aides, to assist with activities of daily living and ambulate with assistance of 1 staff with the use of a front wheeled walker. Review of a State Agency (SA) intake form, Resident #1 reported to Staff A-Certified Nurses Aide on 3/24/23 that on the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAMPBELL, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/21/2016 |
| CASPERS, LESA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/20/2025 |
| DEVRIES, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/19/2023 |
| HESSON, ASHLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/19/2023 |
| KLOPPENBORG, DAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/20/2022 |
| LICHT, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2022 |
| LOSS, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2024 |
| NEWTON, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/20/2022 |
| PAYNE, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/21/2021 |
| WEGENER, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/21/2021 |
| WOLTEMATH, DOUGLAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/22/2013 |
| WOOD, DOROTHEA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/21/2021 |
| GLOEDE, DIANE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/14/1978 |
| LINDSTROM, JERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/22/2008 |
| COSTELLO, SEAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/04/2024 |
| MEEKER, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/13/2026 |
| OCKENFELS, DIAMOND | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/04/2024 |
| OSTRANDER, TOMMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/28/2022 |
| PIPPERT, ROBIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/28/2012 |
| ROBERTSON, BREA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/28/1996 |
| WOOD, DOUGLAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/08/2021 |
| 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 |
| LAGRANGE PHARMACY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| MILLENNIUM REHAB & CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/30/2023 |
| REISER JENNINGS & CO PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| RSM US LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 37 rows in the source record cover these 31 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.
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 165552. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-30, 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.