No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Good Samaritan Society - Albert Lea

75507 240th Street, Albert Lea, MN 56007 · Non profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (507) 379-2701 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (507) 379-2701 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Feb 2025Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)1 actual-harm citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$17,345 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2025
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $17,345 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-11)
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
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

Hospital
★★★★★ 5/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2115 East Main Street
Pharmacy
Shopko1.3 mi
2610 Bridge Ave · (507) 373-9424 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2708 Bridge Ave · (507) 377-2257 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Hershey St. · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased26.8%18.2%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.5%4.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.5%1.9%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.7%2.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.0%4.1%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.3%4.0%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened26.7%20.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication6.6%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.2%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.8%5.2%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.4%24.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table17.3%17.1%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.6%1.9%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine77.2%82.7%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission20.4%23.5%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.7%14.8%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.781.611.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.681.901.80worse

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.

53.1% 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 153 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

53.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
63.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.20U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.10hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 63.6% 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 77 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 21% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF53.1%CMS range 45.9–60.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.4%CMS range 6.4–12.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge63.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge58.4%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge52.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified99.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 discharge98.2%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.1%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.2%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.9%CMS range 3.6–12.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.771.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.55
RN hours/ resident / day
0.37
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.72
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.64
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
1.00
RN hoursweekends
23.8%
Total nursing turnover
15.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 80 beds and averages 72.7 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.55 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.04 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.88 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.77 to 1.00 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% is below the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-13)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-24)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-02-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to protect 2 of 2 female residents (R2, R1) resident's right to be free from sexual abuse and sexaully inappropriate behaviors by male resident (R3). This deficient practice resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R1 who had severe cognitive impairment and unable to give consent, however, a reasonable person would have experienced severe psychosocial harm-dehumanization, and humiliation as a result of the sexual abuse. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) began on 2/5/25, at approximately 10:00 a.m. when R3 was in the dining room unsupervised and found rubbing R1's breasts who was unable to leave the area on her own. The IJ was identified on 2/11/25, and the administrator was notified of the IJ on 2/11/25, at 6:00 p.m. The facility had implemented immediate corrective action on 2/5/25 to prevent recurrence, so the IJ was issued at past non compliance. Findings include: R3 admission Record printed 2/10/25, identified diagnoses of dementia, major…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · G2024-09-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 interview and record review the facility failed to provide safe transfers and follow the care plan to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for falls. The facility's failure resulted in harm when R1 fell and sustained a left hip fracture that required surgical intervention. The facility implemented immediate corrective actions prior to survey and is issued at past non-compliance. Findings include: R1's quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 did not have cognitive impairment. R1's diagnoses included legally blind and diabetes. R1 required one staff assist for staff transfers, toileting hygiene, upper and lower body dressing, and walking. R1 received anticoagulants (blood thinning medications). R1's fall care plan dated 12/1/23, indicated R1 was at risk for falls due to vision deficit. R1's activities of daily living (ADLs) care plan with the intervention dated 6/10/22, indicated R1 required one staff assist with gait belt for ambulation to and from the bathroom, meals,…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-05-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food stored in the refrigerators were labeled, dated and discarded properly. In addition, the facility failed to ensure pans were completely dry before storing, utensils were covered or placed in drawers, and personal items from staff were not allowed in the food prep area. These findings had the potential to affect all 69 residents who were served food from the kitchen. Findings include: During the initial kitchen tour on 5/11/26, commencing at 9:48 a.m., with the manager of nutrition and food services (MNFS)-C, the following observations were made: In a walk-in refrigerator, observed opened and dated food stored past the facility seven-day window per their policy, as well as two opened and undated containers:Facility-made strawberry frost in a hard plastic container with green cover, dated 3/19. Chopped red onion in a plastic storage bag, dated 4/25. Red grapes in a plastic storage bag, dated 10/14. There had been a cloudy whitish/grayish liquid in bag with the grapes. Chef Grade brand hard boiled…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-05-13 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolated
    Ensure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services and assistance were provided to preserve independence for 1 of 1 residents (R44), reviewed for vision and whose vision was highly impaired. Findings include:R44's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/16/26, indicated intact cognition, clear speech, was understood and able to understand. R44's vision was highly impaired, indicating he saw large print, but not regular print in newspapers/books. R44 was independent in some activities of daily living and dependent on staff for others. R44 was able to walk short distances such as to the bathroom.R44's care plan dated 11/25/25, indicated R44 had impaired visual function related to macular degeneration evidenced by moderately impaired vision. R44 would maintain optimal quality of life within limitations imposed by visual function. R44 was able to see very large print/newspaper headlines with magnifying glass and glasses; provide R44 with both. The care plan did not indicate R44 had blindness in his left eye.R44's Optometrist…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure safe operating temperature of high-temperature dish washing machine. This had the potential to affect all 73 residents, staff and visitors who may use washed equipment from the facility kitchen. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 4/23/25 at 11:42 a.m., the dietary manager (DM) stated 3 empty dish racks are sent through the dish machine prior to actual dirty dishes to ensure proper operating temperatures. Proper wash temperature should be 150-degrees and proper rinse temperature should be 180-degrees. The DM sent 3 empty dish racks through and noted the wash and rinse temperature were both approximately 140-degrees. The DM sent 3 more empty dish racks through and continued to get 140 degrees for wash and rinse. The DM stated the dish machine has a booster that increases the temperature to the proper temperature. The DM noted there was a flashing red light on the booster that normally does not flash. Temperatures are logged on log sheet. The DM noted dietary aide (DA)-A documented…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment was used when separating soiled laundry and ensure resident's clean clothing was transported in a way to prevent dust and dirty to collect. This had the potential to impact all 73 residents who reside in the facility. Findings include: An observation on 4/21/25 at 11:38 a.m., laundry aide (LA)-A was pushing a large metal cart down the hallway. The cart contained multiple shirts that were on hangers. The clothing was uncovered. An observation on 4/22/25 at 11:20 a.m., LA-A was delivering clean resident clothing to rooms. A large metal cart with multiple hanging shifts were not covered. LA-A took off a few shirts, hung them on her arm and then took off a few more and carried those by hand into a resident room. An observation of the laundry room on 4/23/25 at 10:54 a.m., LA-A stated bins of soiled resident clothing and linens were sent down each shift. The laundry was then sorted into piles of shirts, pants, towels, sheets, blankets. The laundry was then done from…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach of 1 of 1 resident (R49) reviewed for falls. R49's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated severely impaired cognition and diagnoses of chronic kidney disease (CKD), altered mental status, and a history of falling. It further indicated R49 was independent with most activities of daily living (ADL) and mobility. R49's Falls Risk Tool dated 3/13/25, indicated R49 scored a 20 which was considered a high risk for falls. R49's care plan dated 3/31/25, indicated R49 was at risk for falls related to requiring stand by assist with transfers and ambulation but frequently independently transferred/walked in her room. It further included the following interventions: -Educate resident/family about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs. -Educate resident/family/IDT as to causes of fall. -Remind resident to call/wait for staff assistance rather than self transferring.…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for 1 of 2 residents (R23) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). R23's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated severely impaired cognition and diagnoses of dementia and epilepsy. It further indicated R23 had no rejection of care behaviors, required partial to moderate assistance with toileting, was frequently incontinent of bladder, and always incontinent of bowel. R23's Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 3/13/25 triggered for urinary incontinence due to requiring staff assistance with incontinent personal hygiene. It further indicated R23 had functional incontinence. R23's care plan dated 3/31/25, indicated had bladder incontinence related to a traumatic brain injury (TBI) as evidenced by (E/B) functional incontinence with the following interventions: -avoid food/beverages that may irritate bladder i.e., fruit juices, spicy foods, tomato based products,…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 interview and document review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse timely to the State Agency for 1 of 2 residents (R2) reviewed for allegations of abuse. Findings include: A Nursing Home Incident Report (NHIR) submitted to the SA on 2/4/25 at 1:20 p.m., indicated on 2/2/25 at 9:53 p.m., R3 was found lying next to R2 in her bed. R3 may have been attempting to masturbate while in R2's bed. Submitted approximately 40 hours after the alleged incident. R2's admission Record printed 2/10/25, identified diagnoses of dementia. R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment with no behaviors. R2's Minnesota Vulnerable Adult assessment dated [DATE], indicates R2's vulnerabilities included inability to ambulate without a device and self-propel the wheelchair; unable to report abuse/neglect concerns; confused to person, place and/or time; forgetfulness; varied cognition; high anxiety level; disruptive; and thought or mood disorder that impair…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 document review the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions ((EBPs), an infection control intervention designed to reduce the spread of infections which employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities) were implemented for 2 of 2 residents (R4, R6) observed with implanted medical devices. Findings include: R4 R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R4 was dependent on staff with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R4's diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, ostomy (surgical opening for his bowels), and urinary catheter. R4's infection care plan dated 4/5/24, indicated R4 required EPBs related to supra pubic catheter (a tube that drains urine from the bladder through a small incision in the lower abdomen) and ostomy (a surgical opening for his bowels on abdomen). Interventions directed staff to don a gown and gloves when performing high contact care activities including dressing, bathing, transferring,…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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

    Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure routine weekly skin assessments for impaired skin integrity for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R2) who had impaired skin integrity. Findings include: R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly review dated 6/12/24, identified R1 had severe cognitive impairment. Diagnoses included cancer, and an open lesion with application of non-surgical dressings. R1's care plan revised on 3/21/23, indicated R1 had a potential impairment to skin integrity with a non-healing lesion on the top of his head. Interventions included to monitor location, size and treatment of skin injury, report abnormalities including failure to heal, signs/symptoms of infection, maceration, etc. to health care provider. Avoid scratching and keep hands and body parts from excessive moisture. R1's Wound Data Collection identified on 5/4/24, an initial data collection for the growth on top of R1's head. The assessment did not include wound measurements and a description of the wound. Review of R1's record did not include weekly comprehensive wound assessments for 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-10 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and document review the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed related to wound management. Findings include: R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly review dated 6/12/24, identified R1 had severe cognitive impairment. Diagnoses included cancer, and an open lesion with application of non-surgical dressings. R1's care plan revised on 3/21/23, identified a potential impairment to skin integrity with a non-healing lesion on the top of his head. Interventions included to monitor location, size and treatment of skin injury, report abnormalities including failure to heal, signs/symptoms of infection, maceration, etc. to health care provider. Review of R1's progress notes included a change in skin condition that was identified on 7/8/24 however was not documented until 7/10/24. R1's progress note with a created date of 7/10/24 at 10:04 a.m. and documented effective date of 7/8/24, identified R1's family member had been notified of maggots in the wound on top of R1's head and what staff were doing for it. 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the resident advanced directive was in medical record and failed to follow the facility policy for 2 of 2 (R46 and R48) residents reviewed for advanced directives. Findings include: R46's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated moderate cognition (able to partially understand). Diagnoses included heart failure, depression, and cerebral vascular accident (stroke). R28 had a health literacy score was not completed. R46 face sheet indicated to attempt resuscitation with use of cardiopulmonary recitation (CPR) and full treatment as needed. R46's electronic health record (EHR) banner indicated full code (to attempt life saving measures and use of CPR based on MN POLST (physician orders for life sustaining treatment)). On [DATE] at 10:09 a.m., requested R46 advance directive or supporting document form, none provided. R46's record lacked evidence a form to indicate advanced directives was included in facility record system…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    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 document review the facility failed to coordinate care with an outside health agency for the use of bilateral (both sides) lower leg splints to prevent worsening of contractures for 1 of 2 residents (R5) reviewed for position and mobility. Findings include: R5's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderately cognitively impaired, and had contractures on their right arm, and right leg related to cerebral vascular accident (CVA-stroke). R5's diagnoses included, hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HLD)(high level of lipids in the blood), CVA, venous insufficiency (poor circulation), torticollis (asymmetrical neck position), osteoporosis (OP) (weakened bones), vascular dementia (impairment of thought processes), hemiparesis (one sided paralysis of the body) from a CVA to right side, coronary artery disease (CAD), right leg ulceration (skin breakdown-wound), stiffness of the left ankle, and weakness. R5's physician orders were as follows: -Activity as…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    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 document review, the facility failed to monitor orthostatic blood pressures with the use of an antipsychotic medication for 1 of 5 residents (R1) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment, received extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), and received an antipsychotic medication. R1's care plan printed 2/1/24, indicated potential for psychotropic drug adverse drug reaction (ADR's) related to daily use of psychotropic medications, and included to monitor for hypotension (low blood pressure). R1's physician orders included orders for Seroquel (antipsychotic) 75 milligram (MG) by mouth three times daily for psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological conditions; delusional disorders. R1's treatment administration record (TAR) from August 2023 through February 2024, directed nursing staff to monitor orthostatic blood pressures monthly…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$17,345 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-02-11

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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY — 92 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.0+1.0 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 91 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Edgebrook Care CenterEdgerton, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan - IndianolaIndianola, IA 1 of 5Good Samaritan - Red OakRed Oak, IA 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - AtkinsonAtkinson, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - BlackduckBlackduck, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Grand Island VillageGrand Island, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - LakotaLakota, ND 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane BrownLuverne, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St Luke's VillageKearney, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - WindomWindom, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society De SmetDe Smet, SD 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society MillerMiller, SD 1 of 5Salem Lutheran HomeElk Horn, IA 1 of 5Souris Valley Care CenterVelva, ND 1 of 5St Vincent's - A Prospera CommunityBismarck, ND 1 of 5Sunset Drive - a Prospera CommunityMandan, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan - AtwoodAtwood, KS 2 of 5Good Samaritan - Decatur CountyOberlin, KS 2 of 5Good Samaritan - EsthervilleEstherville, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - MansonManson, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - OttumwaOttumwa, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - WaukonWaukon, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - BottineauBottineau, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Hastings VillageHastings, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - OakesOakes, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Park RiverPark River, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Specialty Care CommunityRobbinsdale, MN 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St John'sKearney, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St Martin VillageRapid City, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - SuperiorSuperior, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Waconia And Westview AcreWaconia, MN 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society CantonCanton, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Luther ManorSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society New UnderwoodNew Underwood, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls CenterSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls VillageSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan-LiberalLiberal, KS 2 of 5The Good Samaritan Society-Kissimmee VillageKissimmee, FL 3 of 5Good Samaritan - AlgonaAlgona, IA 3 of 5Good Samaritan - DavenportDavenport, IA

Showing 40 of 91; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
SANFORDOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF100%since 01/01/2019
THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETYOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF100%since 01/01/2019
BROWN, GEORGEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
DYKHOUSE, DANAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
ENGBRECHT, WESLEYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
GASSEN, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
GULSVIG, NEILIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
HERSETH SANDLIN, STEPHANIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
LUNDEEN, MARKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
MCCAUSLAND, MAUREENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
MOLBERT, LAURISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
NORTH, ANDREWIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
SCHIEFFER, KEVINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
SHULKIN, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
TEIKEN, BRENTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
WENZEL, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
FLUIT, JOELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2022
MIDDLETON, AIMEEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/27/2022
OLSON, NICHOLASIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/08/2024
SCHEMA, NATHANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2022
BALDWIN, RACHELIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/02/2024
LANGBEHN, JENNIFERIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
MORRISON, TONYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2019
SANDGREN, DEEANDRAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/16/2023
DTN STAFFING INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 08/02/2024
FOCUSONE SOLUTIONSOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/04/2024
GRAPE TREE MEDICAL STAFFING LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/13/2018
PHARMERICA CORPORATIONOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 55 rows in the source record cover these 29 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$14.5M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+14.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.2M
Related-party expense18% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 29%Medicare 4%Other / private 67%

This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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

$241per resident / day
operating cost
$7,330per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$283per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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 MN

Paying with Medicaid

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 Minnesota Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Minnesota
$10,646/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$13,870/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,573/mo
Assisted living

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 245441. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-13, 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.

What to do next