Pleasant View Care Center
200 Shannon Drive, Whiting, IA 51063 · For profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (712) 458-2417 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- 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
- its payroll-based staffing score sits 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 | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.3% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 4.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 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 | 5.2% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.2% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.0% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.5% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.0% | 25.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 37.5% | 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 | 74.2% | 73.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.17 | 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.
40.0% 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 42 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 36.1% 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 36 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 0.22 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 28% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 40.0%CMS range 27.2–52.3 | 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 | 11.9%CMS range 7.6–17.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 36.1% | 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 | 44.4% | 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 | 38.9% | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 3.9–12.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 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 70 beds and averages 52.4 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 18 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 4.34 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.14 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 3.78 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.57 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.52 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-03 · 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 review of the planned menu, observations, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility staff failed to follow the planned menu for residents during the pureed meal preparation (Residents #16, #18 and #30) and for additional residents during meal service. The facility identified a census of 56 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the menu identified the following items as part of the planned menu for the pureed and regular diet served at lunch on 7/1/25: a. Lemon Chicken b. Garlic Parmesan Pasta c. Roasted Caesar Vegetables d. Garlic Toast Observation of meal service on 7/1/25 at 11:41 AM, showed: a. Staff C, [NAME] prepared pureed meals for Residents #16, #18 and #30. Staff C placed four servings of chicken into a blender with one piece of garlic bread. When asked why Staff C used one piece of garlic bread, she replied, because it needed to be thickened. b. Staff C noted the pureed chicken would require #8 size scoop and #12 size scoop for a complete serving. Staff C obtained a pan for…
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 before2025-07-03 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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, facility record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure proper temperatures, food palatable and appetizing for 4 of 15 residents reviewed (Residents #24, #42, #45 and #209). The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Finding Include: 1. Observation of meal service on 7/1/25 at 11:41 PM showed the lunch meal consisted of lemon chicken, garlic parmesan pasta, roasted caesar vegetables and garlic toast. a. The chicken appeared dry and burnt. The test tray temped immediately after plating showed: a. Lemon Chicken- 128.2 degrees Fahrenheit (F) b. Garlic parmesan pasta- 110.8 degrees F The test tray after the delivery of meal trays showed: a. Lemon chicken- 117.7 degrees F b. Garlic parmesan pasta- 98.8 degrees F c. Roasted caesar vegetables- 127.9 F In an interview on 6/30/25 at 1:49 PM, Resident #209 reported the food to always be cold and dry. Consumption of the test tray on 7/1/25 at 1:44 PM revealed the chicken difficult to cut, dry and burnt to taste.…
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 before2025-07-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure proper sanitary conditions in the kitchen area, where staff prepared food, and failed to prepare food in a sanitary manner. The facility identified a census of 56 residents. Findings included: The initial kitchen walkthrough on 6/30/25 at 11:35 AM revealed the following: a. East dining room kitchenette- refrigerator and freezer with dried liquid and various scattered food debris. b. [NAME] dining room kitchenette/dining area- white crust lime buildup found on ice machine, coffee machine and dishwasher. c. Drawers with utensils found with various food debris and dried liquid. Cupboards with small appliances found with various food debris. d. The main kitchen found a refrigerator with various food debris. Observation of meal service on 7/1/25 at 11:41 AM, showed: a. After pureeing pasta Staff C, [NAME] entered the dirty side of the kitchen in search of a measuring cup. Staff C touched the dishwasher handle and dish carts then returned to the clean side of the kitchen without completing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-15 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide food served by a method to maintain a safe and appetizing temperature. The facility reported a census of 47. Findings include: On 8/13/24 at 8:42 AM, Staff F, Dietary Aide (DA) grabbed a milk gallon jug off the kitchenette counter and poured a cup. She stated it was for a resident. A temperature check of the milk revealed the temperature was 44.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F). On 8/14/24 at 12:40 PM, a temperature check of each lunch menu item after lunch service revealed the following results. a) Salisbury steak was 128° F. b) Pureed Salisbury steak was 115° F. c) Pureed green beans were 134.5° F. A policy titled Taking Accurate Temperatures dated 2021 indicated temperatures should be taken periodically to assure hot foods stay above 135° F and cold foods stay below 41° F during the serving process. On 8/15/24 at 12:50 PM, the Administrator stated staff should follow the temperature guidelines.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary practices by failing to keep the kitchen food preparation area clean and by improperly handling food during meal service. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: 1. On 8/12/24 at 5:28 PM, Staff C, Dietary Aide (DA) brought the steam table into the dementia unit and set it up for service. She used the tongs to poke through and remove the steam pan aluminum foil cover, picked up a sandwich with the same tongs, then laid the tongs on the cookie tray. She poured the stew into a bowl, moved the tongs, and placed the prepped plate where the tongs were. Another staff member took the plate to a resident. She used the tongs to plate another sandwich, laid the tongs on the cookie tray where the previous prepped plate was, and poured stew into a bowl on the plate and placed the plate on top of the tongs. She repeated this process for five (5) more plates. On 8/12/24 at 5:43 PM, Staff D, Activities Assistant, dropped a cup on the floor while serving dinner, picked it up…
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 · E2024-08-15 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to properly protect resident information from unauthorized access. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: On 8/13/24 at 8:59 AM, Staff H, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) escorted a resident to her room to apply a patch on her. She left her laptop open with 10 residents' Electronic Health Record (EHR) information visible and a sheet of paper with an identified resident's documented narcotic medication administration time. At 9:10 AM, she indicated she was normally assigned a different duty. A policy titled HIPAA / Privacy Complaints effective 11/28/16 indicated It is the policy of this facility to ensure the privacy of Protected Health Information (PHI) as well as to ensure that such information is used and disclosed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. On 8/15/24 at 1:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff should secure the EHR medical record when they leave the cart.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident observations, record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to refer to a resident by name and failed to dress a resident appropriately for meal service 2 of 16 residents (#3 & #46) reviewed for dignity. The facility reported a census of 47. Findings include: 1. On 8/13/24 at 7:57 AM, Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was standing in the dining room and stated the long table in the dining room was the feeder table for residents who required help feeding. Resident #46 was seated at the long table. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score could not be determined due to the resident was rarely or never understood. It included diagnoses of Cerebral Palsy (CP), epilepsy, autistic disorder, and wheelchair dependence. It indicated the resident was dependent in all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and mobility. It also indicated the resident's ability to hear was adequate. 2. On 8/13/24 at 8:23 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 · Dcited before2024-08-15 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on observation, menu review, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to serve the appropriate portions for one (1) residents (#16) who received pureed scalloped potatoes and failed to serve the therapeutic diet for two (2) residents (#6 & #51) who were ordered renal diets. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: On 8/14/24 at 11:25 AM, Staff E, Cook, pureed scalloped potatoes for lunch service. She added three (3) 4-ounce disher servings of scalloped potatoes and milk to the blender and pureed them. She poured the contents into a pitcher and stated it was 3 ½ cups total volume. She referenced the pureed disher conversion chart and stated it directed staff to use a #6 (5 1/3 oz) disher and a #8 (4 oz) disher. She wrote the disher numbers on the top of the steam pan aluminum foil cover. On 8/14/24 at 12:15 PM, continuous lunch service observation revealed Staff G, Dietary Aide (DA) used only the #6 (5 1/3 oz) disher to plate pureed scalloped potatoes for resident #16. On 8/14/24 at 12:40 PM, Staff G stated she…
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 before2024-08-15 · 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
2. On 8/13/24 at 8:32 AM, Staff I, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) carried uncontained, soiled linen from a resident's room to the soiled utility room with gloves. The linen touched his uniform top and the gait belt hanging across his chest. On 8/14/24 at 4:45 PM, Staff J, CNA stated linen should be placed in a bag before it's carried to the soiled utility room. An undated document titled Linen Handling indicated linens need to be placed in plastic bag and taken to laundry bin. It also directed staff to never carry soiled linen against the body. On 8/15/24 at 1:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff should discard linen per policy of linen removal. Based on observation, record review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to complete hand hygiene during medication administration for 2 out of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #25 and #33). The facility also failed to transport linen in a manner that prevented cross contamination. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 8/14/24 at 8:48 AM showed Staff B, Registered Nurse…
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 · D2024-03-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview the facility failed to develop Care Plans to address opioid medication and antidepressant medication side effects to watch for 1 out of 5 sampled residents reviewed for comprehensive Care Plans (Resident #13). The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #13 documented diagnoses of heart failure, hypertension, and Non-Alzheimer's Dementia. The MDS showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the March Medications Administration History Report revealed the following orders: a. Escitalopram (antidepressant medication) daily for depression with a start date of 1/23/24 b. Hydrocodone- acetaminophen (opioid medication) as needed for pain with a start date of 11/21/23. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident was taking antidepressant medication in the review period. Review of the signed Physician Order…
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 · D2024-03-07 · 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 staff interview, chart review, and staff education review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were safe from accidents and hazards for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #33). A Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) failed to apply a gait belt before attempting to transfer Resident #33 from the shower chair to the wheel chair and the resident fell to the floor. The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #33 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score (BIMS) of 8. She was at risk for falls and required extensive assistance with bathing. The Care Plan updated on 2/25/24, showed that Resident #33 was at risk for falling and had a history of falls. She was incontinent of bowel and bladder and was on 2 or more high fall risk drugs. She had impaired mobility and impaired cognition. A Nursing Note dated 1/09/2024 at 3:37 PM showed that Resident #33 fell in the shower room after getting a shower. The resident had stated that 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 · Dcited before2024-03-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that staff used adequate infection control practices to decrease the transmission of pathogens for 2 of 14 residents reviewed (Resident #1 and #34). Resident #34 required daily dressing changes for several wounds and staff failed to use proper hand hygiene during cares. Resident #1 required staff assistance with incontinence cares, they failed to use adequate hand hygiene when changing the resident. The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings include: 1) According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #34 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 (moderate cognitive deficits). She was independent with rolling in bed and required supervision with transfers. Resident #34 had diagnoses that included urinary tract infections, renal insufficiency, and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. The Care Plan updated on 2/24/24, showed that Resident #34 had the potential for pain/discomfort…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GARRED, JOHN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 14% | since 08/16/2022 |
| KEANE, KATHRYN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/06/2014 |
| KIRBY, DANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/28/2008 |
| KLIMAIDES, JANICE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2010 |
| MATHEWS, SARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2013 |
| PUCELIK, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/28/2008 |
| WILT, RHONDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/28/2008 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 165296. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-03, 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.