Parkview Home
102 N. Jackson Street, Wayland, IA 52654 · Non profit - Church related · 34 certified beds · (319) 256-3525 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 20.9% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.5% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.2% | 3.8% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.6% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.4% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.6% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.6% | 25.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.5% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.1% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.32 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.61 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 23% 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 | 10.5%CMS range 7.1–16.5 | 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 | 95.2% | 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 | 4.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.65 | 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 34 beds and averages 27.6 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 6 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 4.07 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.01 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.87 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.37 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.18 to 0.60 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure accurate care planning of antipsychotic medication on the comprehensive Care Plan and failed to ensure the comprehensive Care Plan addressed wandering behavior for 1 of 13 residents reviewed for Care Plans (Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 32 residents. Findings include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #3 dated 6/25/24 revealed the resident scored 3 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. Per this assessment the resident took antipsychotic medication and wandered 1 to 3 days during the 7-day look-back period. Review of Resident #3's clinical record revealed an admission date to the facility on 5/22/24. a. Review of Resident #3's Care Plan for psychotropic medication use dated 6/4/24 revealed the following: I use psychotropic medications (Haloperidol) r/t (related to) anxiety/Depression and Paranoid Schizophrenia. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated May, June,…
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 before2024-08-01 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, clinical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to include person center care needs or identify interventions related to seizure disorders and medications taken to prevent seizures within the Care Plan for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #12 and #26) reviewed for medication regimen. The facility reported a census of 32 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #12, dated 6/11/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Diagnoses included: Parkinson's Disease, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, and depression. The Care Plan, revised 7/09/24, lacked identification of seizure disorder or anticonvulsant medications administered on a routine basis. The Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated August 2024, revealed medications ordered included: 1. Levetiracetam 500 milligrams (mg), given one and a half tablets by mouth every day and evening shift for Altered Mental Status (AMS), started on 3/27/24. 2. Carbamazepine 200 mg, given 1…
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 · D2024-08-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and clinical record review, the facility failed to ensure interventions had been effective to prevent recurring falls in 1 of 5 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #19). The facility reported a census of 32 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed Resident #19 required partial to moderate amount of staff assistance to transfer and ambulate. Diagnoses included Parkinson's Disease, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, asthma, and muscle weakness. The MDS revealed Resident #19 had 2 or more falls since the last assessment date. The Care Plan, dated 5/08/24, revealed Resident #19 had been at high risk of falls with a history of multiple falls and listed the following dates in which a fall occurred: 2/18/24, 2/25/24, 3/21/24, 4/21/24, 4/22/24, 4/29/24, 5/01/24, 5/24/24, 5/25/24, 5/28/24, 5/30/24, 6/04/24,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-01 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
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, interview, hospital record review, and clinical record review, the facility failed to include self harm monitoring, triggers, and safety interventions in the plan of care following attempted suicide for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for behavioral health needs (Resident #12). The facility reported a census of 32 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/11/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #12 had verbal behaviors directed at others and rejection of cares reported during the review period. Diagnoses included Parkinson's Disease without dyskinesia, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The MDS revealed Resident #12 required antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. The Care Plan, revised on 7/09/24, revealed Resident #12 had impaired cognitive function, verbal aggression, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-02 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure residents who received a pureed diet were served all foods included on the menu for four of four residents who received a pureed diet (Resident #3, Resident #7, Resident #19, Resident #22). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include: On 10/31/23 at approximately 11:15 AM an observation of the puree process was completed with Staff A, Dietary. Observation revealed pureed food items did not include bread for the lunch meal. Review of the general menu at the time of survey revealed the following for Tuesday: country fried steak, mashed potatoes, country gravy, vegetable blend, bread/[NAME], ambrosia dessert, and milk. Review of the pureed menu for Tuesday revealed the meal included 1 serving of puree bread/[NAME]. On 11/1/23 at approximately 1:14 PM, the Dietary Manager notified of the observation with additional information requested. On 11/1/23 at 1:14 PM, the Dietary Manager returned…
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 · D2023-11-02 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to notify the physician when a resident's weight increased by two pounds in a day per the physician order for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for notification of changes (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 30. Finding include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 scored 15 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition intact. The MDS documented the resident had medical diagnoses including heart failure, unspecified, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified, lung transplant status, and Type II diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. The MDS documented resident received insulin injections and a diuretic 7 out of 7 days. The Care Plan revealed a focus problem for Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) with initiated date 1/01/22. The Care Plan document an intervention dated 4/6/22 as follows; resident on diuretic therapy for CHF. 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 · D2023-11-02 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to consistently notify the ombudsman of a resident's transfer to the hospital for one of two residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #4 dated 8/29/23 revealed the resident scored 7 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The Progress Note for Resident #4 dated 9/20/23 at 4:17 AM documented, in part, Called to 200 hall by staff. Observed resident sitting on floor in front of room [ROOM NUMBER]. Resident in [room number redacted] heard her shout for help and put call light on. Copious amounts of blood was on gown front and back. Hair was covered with blood. Observed hole in back of head about size of nickel. Resident does not remember falling. States she woke up on the floor and scooted out to hall way on her bottom to get help. Back or her…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-02 · 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, interview, and record review the facility failed to revise the Care Plan to address use of antidepressant medication and/or reflect current antidepressant medications ordered, and update following discontinuation of antidepressant medication for three of twelve residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #2, Resident #19, Resident#27). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #27 dated 9/20/23 revealed the resident scored 3 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. Per this assessment, the resident received antidepressant medication for seven of the last seven days. The Physician Order dated 6/24/23 documented, Sertraline HCl Oral Tablet 25 MG (milligram) with directions to give 25 mg by mouth every day shift for dementia. On 11/1/23, review of the Care Plan for Resident #27 did not address receipt of antidepressant medication for Resident #27. Observation…
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 · D2023-11-02 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure insulin held per physician ordered parameters and failed to set oxygen at the physician ordered rate for three of twelve residents reviewed for professional standards (Resident #2, Resident #13, Resident #27). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #13 dated 10/14/23 revealed the resident scored 6 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Per this assessment, the resident received insulin injections for seven of the last seven days. The Care Plan for Resident #13 dated 5/10/19 documented, I a diagnoses of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Physician Order dated 7/31/23 documented, NovoLOG Solution 100 UNIT/ML (Unit/Milliliter) with directions to inject 10 unit subcutaneously in the evening for DM II Administer with supper. Hold if BS (blood sugar) if below 125. 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure care planned diet recommendations from the Registered Dietician were consistently implemented for one of one resident reviewed for nutrition (Resident #6). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident scored 6 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The Care Plan dated 6/1/20, revised 10/10/23, documented, I am at risk for nutrition alteration due to: Schizoaffective disorder, ASHD, constipation, depression, hx (history) of TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack), adult failure to thrive. I would like to have a gradual wt (weight) loss. Hx of covid 19. Swallow concerns. I have a mass on thyroid which affects my swallowing. The Intervention dated 6/1/20, revised 10/10/23, documented, I will receive a Gen (general) diet to meet by nutrition needs. I will be offered alternatives as…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BROWN, DARREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/26/2023 |
| EUBANKS, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| GARRETT, TINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/31/2019 |
| GUGEL, LARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| RINNER, WES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/26/2023 |
| SHANK, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/11/2022 |
| SHREEVES, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/01/2023 |
| BELTRAMEA, CORA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/20/2022 |
| BROWN, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/10/2021 |
| GERMAN, HEATHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/16/2011 |
| SEMLER, RONALD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/23/2020 |
| VAN DUYN, LINDSEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/19/2023 |
| 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 |
| KEY REHABILITATION INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| TDT CPA'S AND ADVISORS PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/18/2017 |
| WILLIAM BURKE LTD | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 165547. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-12, 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.