West Point Care Center Inc
607 6th Street, West Point, IA 52656 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 46 certified beds · (319) 837-6117 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- 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
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, 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
- the CMS record shows $13,627 in federal fines (most recent 2024-01-22)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.1% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.8% | 4.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.5% | 4.2% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 0.0% | 3.8% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.6% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.2% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.5% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.6% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.54 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 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.
39.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.0% 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 25 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% 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 | 39.4%CMS range 27.8–55.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 8.2–19.4 | 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 | 60.0% | 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 | 52.0% | 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 | 44.0% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.7–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 46 beds and averages 29.1 residents a day — about 63% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.62 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.16 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.11 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 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-01-22 · 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 Facility Reported Incident (FRI) review, observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from mental abuse and verbal abuse by a staff member for three of six residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #30, #84, and #134), resulting in a resident report of the employee being mean to them, resident display of negative reactions including being irate and displaying increased behaviors around the employee, and staff report of the employee taunting a resident. The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings Include: Review of a Self-Report Reporting Information for an Incident which occurred 10/9/23 at 10:00 AM, documented the following per the Incident Summary: A staff member wrote a statement stating Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on 2nd sift talks badly to the residents. She stated that residents have told her to get out of their room. The statement reports Resident #4 was told she could take herself to 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 · D2026-05-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) used during wound care and urinary catheter care as a measure to reduce the transition of multidrug resistant organisms for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for infection control. The facility reported a census of 29.Findings included:Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #5, dated 4/19/26, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, which indicated a mild cognitive impairment. The assessment list of diagnoses included diabetes, arthritis and cancer. The MDS indicated Resident #5 used a urinary catheter and had a stage 3 pressure ulcer (full-thickness of skin loss exposing subcutaneous fat). The resident identified as dependent on staff for toileting, lower body dressing and transfers. Review of Clinical Physician Orders for Resident #5 revealed the following:a. Clean wound, apply skin prep to surrounding skin, cover with border gauze, change twice weekly 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 · Dcited before2026-01-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 interviews, and the facility policy, the facility failed to perform check and changes on a resident for at least 8 hours for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for incontinence cares (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 32 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 scored a 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition intact. The MDS indicated the resident had impairment in one upper and lower extremity. The MDS revealed Resident #1 dependent on toileting hygiene and required substantial/maximal assistance with chair/bed to chair transfer. The MDS indicated the resident was frequently incontinent of bladder. The MDS revealed medical diagnoses for hemiplegia following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting the left non-dominant side. The Care Plan revealed a focus are revised on 10/9/24 for assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) related to history of cerebral…
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 · D2025-05-29 · 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, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility failed to update the Care Plan for 2 of 12 residents for risk of elopement (Resident #18) and use of an antibiotic (Resident #26). The facility reported a census of 27 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 scored 7 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. Per this assessment, the resident did not exhibit wandering. Review of Resident #18's Care Plan did not address wandering/elopement risk. Review of Resident #18's Elopement Evaluation dated 5/21/25 revealed the resident scored 0.0 on the assessment, indicated a score of 1 or higher indicated risk for elopement. The assessment revealed, in part, the following questions had been answered with response of no: Has the Resident verbally expressed the desire to go home, packed belongings to go home or stayed near an exit door? Does the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-29 · 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, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to instruct a resident to swish and spit after receiving a puff of a steroid inhaler for 1 of 1 residents observed for inhalation medication administration (Resident #16). The facility reported a census of 27 residents. Findings include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #16 scored a 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition intact. The MDS revealed diagnosis for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or chronic lung disease. Review of the clinical record revealed an Physician Orders for Advair Diskus Inhalation Aerosol Powder Breath Activated 250-50 mcg/act (micrograms per actuation) (fluticasone-salmeterol)- 1 puff inhale orally two times a day related to emphysema, unspecified During an observation on 5/29/25 at 7:33 AM, Staff D, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) took Resident #16 Advair Diskus 250 mcg/50 mcg…
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 · D2025-05-29 · 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 interview, and clinical record review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were consistently implemented for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #18). The facility reported a census of 27 residents. Findings include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident scored 7 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. Further review of the assessment revealed the resident had fallen since admit, entry, reentry, or prior assessment, and had one fall with no injury. Review of the Care Plan dated 12/17/24 revealed, I need assist with ADL's (activities of daily living) R/T (related to) history of rhabdomyolysis, requiring significant cues to stay on task and use proper form, and poor attention which places me at risk for falls/injury. The Intervention dated 5/26/25 revealed, Fall intervention 5/26/25: alarm at all times. The Physician Order dated 5/26/25 at 10:00 PM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 the facility policy reviewed, the facility failed to provide showers daily per physician orders for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for showers (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 29 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 scored a 5 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated cognition severely impaired. The MDS revealed the resident required a substantial/maximal assistance with shower or bathe self and dependent with tub or shower transfers. The Care Plan revealed a focus area revised on 2/26/24 for assistance with ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) related to CVA (cerebral vascular accident) with right-sided weakness, and poor vision which placed the resident at risk for falls and injuries. The interventions revised on 11/8/23 revealed assistance the resident with bathing with 1 staff. The resident scheduled daily baths per family request and he refused to take them on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-01-22 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on Facility Reported Incident (FRI) review, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure allegations of mental abuse and verbal abuse from a staff member to residents was reported to the State Agency within required regulatory timeframe for five of six residents reviewed for abuse included as part of a Facility Reported Incident and/or included in staff statements as part of the FRI (Resident #1, #4, #13, #30, and #134). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings Include: Review of a Self-Report Reporting Information for an Incident which occurred 10/9/23 at 10:00 AM, documented the following per the Incident Summary: A staff member wrote a statement stating Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on 2nd sift talks badly to the residents. She stated that residents have told her to get out of their room. The statement reports Resident #4 was told she could take herself to the bathroom and she is not helpless. Resident #4 has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. Staff B told Resident #30 she wasn't going…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-01-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on Facility Reported Incident (FRI) review, clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation following allegations of mistreatment, mental abuse, and verbal abuse from a staff member to residents for six of six residents reviewed for abuse, four of which were named in a Facility Reported Incident (FRI) (Resident #1, #4, #13, and #30), one additional resident referenced in a staff statement included in the FRI documentation (Resident #134), and for one additional resident identified by staff upon interview (Resident #84). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings Include: Review of a Self-Report Reporting Information for an Incident which occurred 10/9/23 at 10:00 AM, documented the following per the Incident Summary: A staff member wrote a statement stating Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on 2nd sift talks badly to the residents. She stated that residents have told her to get out of their room. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$13,627 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $13,627 — penalty dated 2024-01-22
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-02-20 for 26 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THOMAS F JUCKETTE MARITAL TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 11/01/2014 |
| JUCKETTE, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| CAPSTONE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| BALDWIN, CONNIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| BELL, KIMBERLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/15/2023 |
| BOYER, HATTIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/20/2023 |
| IRVIN, VICKI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| MARTIN, TYLER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/19/2022 |
| RASHID, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2023 |
| VAN FLEET, PAIGE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/12/2023 |
| LODDEN, TELFORD | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| CREATIVE PLANNING HOLD CO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2024 |
| GUARDIAN PHARMACY OF IOWA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/31/2021 |
| HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| INTEGRATED HEALTH SYSTEMS INTERMEDIATE, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/25/2015 |
| KEY REHABILITATION INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| TRAVERSE POINT PANTHERS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/25/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
This home reported $75K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165569. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-07, 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.