Zearing Health Care, LLC
404 East Garfield St, Zearing, IA 50278 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 40 certified beds · (641) 487-7631 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $22,205 in federal fines (most recent 2026-06-30)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 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 | 19.6% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.9% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.1% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 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 | 0.8% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.0% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.0% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 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 | 19.2% | 25.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.5% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.11 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.21 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.01 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 1% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 40 beds and averages 31.8 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.68 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.30 is below 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 3.32 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.00 to 0.62 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-06-30 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 didn't clarify and implement an emergency overdose medication order upon admission, failed to maintain an available stock of emergency medication, didn't provide staff with access or training for the automated medication storage system, and failed to accurately measure and administer titrated liquid narcotic doses for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #1).The State Agency informed the facility of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on [DATE] at 1:45 PM that began as of [DATE]. The Facility Staff removed the IJ on [DATE] through the following actions:-On [DATE] the Director of Nursing (DON) met with each nurse and Certified Medication Aide (CMA) showing the location of the Narcan in each medication cart and how to use it.- On [DATE] the Pharmacy delivered Narcan along with the fact sheet on the usage and a nasal spray of Narcan was placed in both medication carts. The DON met with all nursing staff on the usage of the Narcan spray.-On [DATE] an audit was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2026-06-30 · 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 clinical record review, staff interviews, observations, and facility policy, the facility failed to perform smoking assessments to identify hazards for residents who smoked, suffered burns while smoking, and failed to implement new interventions to replace the ineffective ones to prevent further burns or decrease the risk burns for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #6, #8, #9) reviewed for smoking. The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include:1. Resident #6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #6 required partial or moderate assistance with bed mobility and substantial or maximal assistance with transfers and oral hygiene. The MDS documented Resident #6 had functional limitations in range of motion and impairments on both sides for the upper and lower extremities. The MDS included diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia (brain function decline)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2026-06-30 · 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 clinical record review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to implement weight loss interventions in a timely manner for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #6 and #3) for weight loss. The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include:1. Resident #6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #6 required substantial or maximal assistance with eating. The MDS included diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia (brain function decline) and Huntington's disease (neurodegenerative disorder). The MDS documented Resident #6 experienced signs and symptoms of a swallowing disorder including loss of liquids or solids from the mouth when eating or drinking, holding food in the mouth or cheeks, maintaining residual food in the mouth after meals, and coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications. The MDS documented Resident #6…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-06-30 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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, facility investigation file, observation, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to have two staff members present when narcotic medications were destroyed for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for controlled substance use (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4). Additionally, the facility failed to remove expired medications from the medication cart in a timely manner (Resident #3 and Resident #4) and have a system in place to adequately dispense and reconcile controlled drugs (Resident #1 and #6). The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include:1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #1 functioned independently with bed mobility, transfers, and ambulation. The MDS included diagnoses of Huntington's disease (neurodegenerative disorder). The MDS documented Resident #1 received opioid medication during the last 7…
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 · D2026-06-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to complete and document appropriate assessments and interventions for the necessary care and services, to maintain the residents' highest practical physical well-being for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #7) for skin. The facility reported a census of 34 residents.Findings include:Resident #7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #7 required partial/moderate assistance with putting on/taking off footwear and was independent with transfers/ambulation. The MDS included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy (kidney damage caused by poorly controlled diabetes). The Care Plan with a target date 9/7/26 revealed Resident #7 had diabetes mellitus. The care plan directed staff to monitor, document, and report to Physician as needed for signs/symptoms 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 · D2026-06-30 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, physician interview and policy review, the facility failed to obtain a follow up urinalysis (UA) after completion of an antibiotic for a urinary tract infection (UTI) as ordered by the Physician for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 34 residents.Findings include: Resident #5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #5 was dependent on staff with transfers to the toilet and toileting hygiene. The MDS documented Resident #5 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #5's MDS included diagnoses of Huntington's disease (neurodegenerative disorder) and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The Care Plan with a target date 6/18/26 lacked documentation regarding Resident #5's urinary incontinence or risk for UTIs. The Progress Note dated 3/20/26 documented a new order was received to…
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 · E2026-01-22 · tag F0552 — patternEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 obtain informed consent for psychotropic medications that have black box warnings (the most serious safety warning the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses and requires the healthcare provider to have a comprehensive discussion with the resident/representative about the risks, benefits and alternatives for use) for 5 of 5 resident reviewed for psychotropic medications (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4 and #10). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of depression and cerebral palsy (disorder affecting movement, posture, and coordination due to non-progressive damage to the developing brain). Resident #1 received an antidepressant and benzodiazepine (2 types of psychotropic drugs that are used to manage various mental health…
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 · E2026-01-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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, resident and staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to develop a comprehensive, person-centered Care Plan for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for falls (Residents #2, #10 and #29). Staff members reported each resident had a history of putting themselves on the floor, but their Care Plans didn't reflect the behavior. The facility reported a census of 31.Findings include: In an interview on 1/21/26 at 3:15 PM with Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN), and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Staff A stated Resident #2 tries to get out of bed, so they have a mattress and pads on the floor. Staff A added its Care Planned as she is compulsive and gets agitated. She said Resident #10 rolls herself out of bed when she wants up as she does not use the call light. The ADON stated if she rolled out 2-3 times, they would get her up as she probably wanted up. Resident #29 is noncompliant with lots of things and is known to put himself on the floor.In an interview on 1/22/26 at 9:40…
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 · E2026-01-22 · 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 kitchen service observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to use gloves correctly to prevent cross contamination. The facility's kitchen staff applied gloves and left them on while touching food and nonfood items. The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include:On 1/20/26 at 11:00 PM, observed the staff puree food. The Dietary Manager (DM) donned (applied) gloves to both hands. After donning gloves she touched the ladle, the pan containing the rolls, placed 6, 6-ounce servings of soup in a container. With the same gloves on, she added 6 rolls, then dumped the contents of the container into a food processor and pureed the food. The DM grabbed the package of bread with the same gloved hands, opened it, and grabbed the 3 pieces of bread out. With the same gloved hands, she tore up the bread, placed them in the food processer and pureed the contents more. The DM poured the soup back into the pan and put the pan in the oven to heat up more. Without changing her gloves or completing hand hygiene, the DM grabbed plates and bowls before…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-27 · tag 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 record review, policy review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect while assisting with their activities of daily living (ADL) for 2 of 5 residents reviewed (Residents #1 and #2). The facility reported a census of 32 residents. Findings include:1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] listed an admission date of 3/14/22. The MDS identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #1 required supervision or touching assistance with eating and substantial/maximal assistance with mobility. The MDS included diagnoses of Huntington's disease and non-Alzheimer's dementia.The Care Plan Focus revised 8/6/25 reflected Resident #1 had a potential nutritional problem related to swallowing issues. The Interventions instructed the following:a. Resident #1 needed a calm, quiet setting at meals with adequate time to eat.b. She used curved utensils, a Kennedy cup (spill proof…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-27 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond 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 clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to separate residents from alleged perpetrator of verbal abuse in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 32 residents.Findings include:Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] listed an admission date of 3/14/22. The MDS identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #1 required supervision or touching assistance with eating and substantial/maximal assistance with mobility. The MDS included diagnoses of Huntington's disease and non-Alzheimer's dementia.The Care Plan Focus revised 8/6/25 reflected Resident #1 had a potential nutritional problem related to swallowing issues. The Interventions instructed the following:a. Resident #1 needed a calm, quiet setting at meals with adequate time to eat.b. She used curved utensils, a Kennedy cup (spill proof cup with handle 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 · D2025-06-02 · 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, clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy/procedure review, the facility failed to follow the 5 rights of medication administration and physician orders to prevent a medication error from occurring. On 5/3/25, during the morning medication pass, a Registered Nurse (RN) took Resident #2's oral medications and gave them to Resident #1. The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] reflected they could usually make themselves understood and understood others. The MDS identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS listed Resident #1 as dependent in all activities of daily living (ADL). The MDS included diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia and Huntington's disease. The Care Plan included Focuses of: a. Revised 2/26/20: Resident #1 has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to Huntington's…
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 · D2025-02-19 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse timely for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for alleged abuse (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS included a diagnosis of Huntington's disease (causes nerve cells in the brain to decay over time, affecting the person's movements, thinking ability, and mental health). The Care Plan Focus revised 10/27/22 described Resident #1 as a smoker, who required supervision to smoke. During an interview on 2/17/25 at 12:25 PM, Staff A, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), reported she worked with Staff B, CNA, and Staff C, CNA, on 1/3/25. After she came in the building after she took residents out to smoke, Resident #1 came up to smoke late. Staff A reported as she assisted another resident take off her coat,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-19 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond 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 record review, staff interviews, policy review and staff timecard punch detail, the facility staff who witnessed an alleged abuse to a resident on 1/3/25 failed to report the incident to the facility administration or the Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing. Due to the facility's staff failing to report the alleged abuse to the Administration, the facility Administration failed to separate the alleged abuser from the resident for 1 residents reviewed for alleged abuse (Resident #1). The Administrator reported he didn't learn of the situation until 1/10/25, allowing the alleged abuser to continue to work with Resident #1 and other residents in the facility for approximately 7 days after the incident. Please refer to deficiency F609 for additional information. The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. 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
$22,205 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $22,205 — penalty dated 2026-06-30
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIDWEST SNF HOLDING COMPANY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/19/2025 |
| CHOSEN CONSULTING INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/19/2025 |
| ORLINSKY, MOSHE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2014 |
| MIDWEST SNF MANAGER LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| SAMMON, BRAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2014 |
| VANGORP, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/21/2025 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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.
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 165320. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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.