Woodland Terrace
1922 Fifth Avenue NW, Waverly, IA 50677 · Non profit - Other · 100 certified beds · (319) 352-4540 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- 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 an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 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 | 14.4% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.7% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 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 | 4.1% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.4% | 16.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.9% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.7% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.1% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 34.0% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 73.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.6% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 0.0% | 13.2% | 12.0% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.46 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.76 | 2.08 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
63.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 73 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 43.9% 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 0.19 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 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 63.0%CMS range 54.4–71.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 7.0–14.3 | 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 | 43.9% | 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 | 41.5% | 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 | 34.1% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.3%CMS range 3.1–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.54 | 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 100 beds and averages 79.4 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 21 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 4.44 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.15 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.92 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 4.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.55 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.36 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% 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.
- Actual harm · G2024-04-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to follow safety interventions for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #2). On 11/11/24 facility staff failed to position Resident #2's bed in the low position before leaving the resident unattended and alone in the room. The resident had an unwitnessed fall from the bed to the floor which resulted in a fracture of the right femur. The facility identified a census of 86 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #2 had moderately impaired vision, required extensive assistance of two staff for transfer and bed mobility. The MDS included diagnoses of Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, chronic pain, and muscle weakness. The MDS documented the resident had experienced 1 fall with no injury since admission or reentry.…
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 before2026-06-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, review of facility cleaning calendar, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff cleaned the stove top. The facility reported a census of 81 residents. Findings include:On 6/22/26 at 11:20 AM an initial tour revealed the Vulcan stove had a build-up of a thick black tacky substance covering the entire stove top. On 6/24/26 at 9:50 AM an observation revealed the Vulcan stove still had a build-up of a thick black tacky substance covering the entire stove top. On 6/24/26 at 9:55 AM Staff B, Cook, indicated they only cleaned the grates but didn't clean the stove top. Staff B also stated, We don't clean it. It's over [AGE] years old. I wouldn't want to start a fire by using a degreaser (grease remover). On 6/24/26 at 9:59 AM the Dietary Manager (DM) indicated the cook's held the responsibility of cleaning the stove. She expected them to scrub it each shift. The DM added the stove's age exceeded 20 years. On 6/24/26 at 10:11 AM the Administrator indicated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-27 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, policy review, facility investigation review and staff interview the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation after a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) reported physical abuse which occurred on the dementia unit affecting 24 of 25 residents (Resident #2, #3,#4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25 and #26). The facility reported a census of 87 residents.Findings include:A Facility Investigation Note submitted to the Iowa Department of Inspection, Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) detailed on 7/02/25 Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) called to inform Staff B, Director of Nursing (DON) of an allegation of abuse. At 4: 30 AM, Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) went in to assist Resident #1. Resident #1 became aggressive and started to hit and scratch Staff C. Staff C assisted the resident to sit down on her bed and stepped away to calm herself, then went to get Staff A. Staff A finished assisting Resident #1. Resident #1 was calm and compliant. At 5:45 AM, Staff C reported to Staff 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 · D2025-08-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, document review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse when a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) tapped a resident on the head during care provision for 1 of 3 residents sampled (Resident #1). The facility identified a census of 87 residents.Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15 indicating severe cognitive loss. Resident #1 exhibited inattention (being easily distractible/having difficulty keeping track of what is said) which was continuously present and disorganized thinking (rambling or irrelevant conversation, illogical flow of ideas, or unpredictable switching from subject to subject) continually present. Resident #1 required moderate/partial assistance (helper does less than half the effort. The helper lifts, holds, or supports the trunk or limbs, but provides less than half the effort) with toileting…
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 before2025-05-08 · 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 policy review the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen; failed to serve and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food safety to reduce the risk of cross contamination and food borne illness. The facility reported a census of 86 residents. Findings include: During a continuous observation on 5/05/25 from 11:15 AM to 12:44 PM of meal service on second floor, Staff L, dietary, handling hamburger buns with her bare hands after touching her face and adjusting her shirt without performing hand hygiene for eight residents. At 11:43 AM after adjusting her glasses and not doing hand hygiene used her bare hands to slide food from one plate to another touching the food with her hands then serving it to a resident. At 11:57 AM Staff L rubbed her nose then went to the hand washing station, got soap on her hands and washed her hand for 5 seconds. She then got a tong and put it with the hamburger buns. Observation on 5/05/25 at 1:00 PM the kitchen floor on the second floor being very dirty with a bowl in the corner by the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to administer the correct dosage of medication as physician ordered resulting in a 7.69 percent (%) medication error rate affecting 2 of 8 residents sampled (Residents #2 and #29). The facility reported a census of 86 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 2 out 15 indicating a severe cognitive loss. The MDS documented Resident #2 with complaints of difficulty or pain when swallowing and a diagnosis of cancer of the oropharynx (middle part of the throat), unspecified. Resident #2's Physician Order electronically signed by the Provider on 4/11/25 directed to give Atropine Sulfate Ophthalmic Solution 0.01 % give 1 drop by mouth as needed for secretions four times a day as needed for secretions. On 5/06/25 at 7:49 AM Staff N, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) reported she planned to give Resident #2…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to properly store medications and remove expired medications per the manufacturer's recommendations for use from 1 of 3 medication carts inspected. The facility identified a census of 86 residents. Findings include: Medication cart inspection of the Evergreen Arbor medication cart on 5/08/25 at approximately 8:47 AM revealed the following expired medications: a. One bottle stock Melatonin 1 Milligram (MG), 90 tablet count with 31 tablets left in the bottle, best by date 3/25. b. One bottle stock docusate sodium 100 MG, open date 12/21/24, bottle 2/3 full expired 4/25. c. Resident #16 one bottle Latanoprost 0.005% eye drop, instill one drop in each eye daily at bedtime, open date 3/4/25, expiration date 4/25, documented on the medication bag by Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN). d. Resident #58 one bottle Latanoprost 0.005% eye drops, instill one drop in each eye daily at bedtime, open date 3/4/25, expiration date 4/25, documented on the medication bag by Staff B. e. Resident #74 one Lantus Solostar KwikPen…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), policy review, and staff interview, the facility staff failed to wear an isolation gown and gloves during high-risk care provision of 1 of 3 residents on CDC Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (Resident# 79) and failed to prevent cross contamination when a urinary drainage bag came into contact with the floor for 1 of 2 residents sampled (Resident #79). The facility identified a census of 86 residents. Findings include: Resident #79 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 6 out of 15 indicating a severe cognitive loss. Resident #79 required substantial to maximal assistance with toileting. The MDS documented Resident #79 utilized an indwelling urinary catheter for a diagnosis of obstructive uropathy and had a urinary tract infection (UTI) with in the last 30 days. A Hospital Progress Note, History of Current Hospitalization dated 4/15/25 at 8:01 AM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide weekly assessment and intervention for 1 of 3 pressure ulcers (PU) reviewed (Resident #64). Review of this resident's record revealed that Resident #64 did not have consistent weekly measurements of an unstageable PU on her heel. The facility reported a census of 85 residents. Findings include: The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment identifies the definition of pressure ulcers: Stage I is an intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have a visible blanching; in dark skin tones only it may appear with persistent blue or purple hues. Stage II is partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough (dead tissue, usually cream or yellow in color). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister. Stage III Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-30 · 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 interview, and policy review the facility failed to perform proper hand hygiene and to follow proper personal protective equipment guidelines to prevent the spread of potential infection and germs during medication administration for 2 of 6 resident reviewed (Residents # 12 and #14). The facility reported a census of 85 residents. Findings include: During an observation on 5/28/23 at 11:05 AM, Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) without doing hand hygiene gathered her supplies for insulin administration for Resident #12. Staff A wiped the insulin pen with alcohol and applied the needle cap and primed the pen. Staff A then turned the dial of insulin pen to the correct dosage and proceeded to the resident. Staff A then cleansed Resident #12's abdominal site with an alcohol wipe and administered the insulin. Staff A proceeded back to the cart and took the needle cap off and put it in the sharps container then put the insulin back in the cart. Staff A signed the insulin administration on the computer chart. Staff A did not do hand hygiene after administration 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.
- No harm found · B2025-05-08 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 provide notice of Bed-Hold policy and return prior to 1 of 1 hospitalizations reviewed (Resident #39). The facility reported a census of 86 residents. Findings include: Record review of Resident #39 Census in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented she discharged to the hospital on 3/23/25 and returned to the facility on [DATE]. She discharged to the hospital again on 3/29/25 and returned to the facility on 4/01/25. Record review of Resident #39 Progress Notes lacked documentation her or her Power of Attorney (POA) were notified of the facilities Bed Hold policy. During an interview on 5/07/25 at 12:25 PM Staff J, Social Services reports the facility failed to do a Bed Hold for Resident #39 transfers to the hospital. She reports staff normally ask the resident and have them sign it if able. If they don't ask the resident then they contact the family to see if they want the bed to be held. Review of the facility policy titled…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-05-08 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on Electronic Health Record (EHR) review, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long term Care (LTC) Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately code 1 of 1 residents (Resident #38) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for an indwelling catheter during the look back period. The facility reported a census of 86. Findings include: The MDS with a target date of 2/6/2025 documented Resident #38 had no indwelling catheter, external catheter, ostomy or intermittent catheterization. The MDS documented diagnoses of benign prostatic hyperplasia (a condition where the prostate gland, located below the bladder in men, enlarges over time), obstructive uropathy (a blockage or hindrance in the flow of urine from kidneys through the ureters and into the bladder, and then out through the urethra) and renal insufficiency (a condition where the kidneys are not functioning at their full capacity). Staff D, MDS Coordinator electronically signed the MDS on 2/10/25 verifying assessment completion. A review 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.
- No harm found · C2024-05-30 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to have the minimum required members at the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings to identify issues with respect to which quality assessment and assurance activities were necessary. The facility identified a census of 85 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility QAA sign in sheets revealed the Administrator, Medical Director, Director of Nursing (DON), and at least two other staff were present at the meetings. The Infection Preventionist Nurse was present for only two of the four quarterly meetings. During an interview on 5/30/24 at 9:35 AM, both CO-Directors of Nursing (DON's) reported the facility did not have the Infection Preventionist Nurse attend the past two quarterly QAA meetings. During an interview on 5/30/24 at 9:50 AM, The Administrator acknowledged that the facility did not have a Infection Preventionist at the past two quarterly QAA meetings. Review of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan undated revealed the QAA Committee would…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANDERSON, MARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/01/2016 |
| BUCHHOLZ, BEAU | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/01/2020 |
| CORSON, STEVEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/01/2019 |
| GREEN, REGINALD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/01/2021 |
| KRUMWIEDE, SHELLY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/01/2023 |
| LEISINGER, SCOTT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 10/01/2024 |
| MCBURNEY, RICHARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/01/2024 |
| SCHWARTZ, KATIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/01/2019 |
| WHITSON, SUSAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2000 |
| FAGRE, LEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2000 |
| GEISE, PAULA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/11/2019 |
| SHEA, VERONICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2025 |
| ZUMBACH, PEGGY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/02/2021 |
| FIRST BANK | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| FOX REHAB PT IA PLLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| GRAPE TREE MEDICAL STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/15/2018 |
| LEADINGAGE ILLINOIS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/06/2025 |
| MIDWEST COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/18/2017 |
| RYKA INCORPORATED | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/15/2023 |
| RYUN, GIVENS & COMPANY, P.C. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2000 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 20 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.
7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 165442. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-25, 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.