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

Knute Nelson Care Center

420 12th Avenue East, Alexandria, MN 56308 · Non profit - Corporation · 83 certified beds · (320) 763-6653 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (320) 763-6653 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0604) — cited May 2024
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1103 Broadway St · (320) 314-3828 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens0.4 mi
910 Broadway St · (320) 763-4360 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
222 6th Ave E · (320) 805-1176 · Call to confirm hours
Park
905 Lake St · (320) 763-6678 · 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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 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 improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating5★
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 increased15.9%18.2%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.0%4.1%5.4%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.9%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.3%2.6%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.1%4.1%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.2%4.0%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened21.5%20.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication15.7%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.2%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.4%5.2%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control33.2%24.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table8.1%17.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication3.0%1.9%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine85.3%82.7%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission15.6%23.5%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit14.1%14.8%12.0%worse

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

59.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 144 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

59.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
66.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.37U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.21hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.15hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 66.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 94 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 SNF59.4%CMS range 51.7–67.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.7%CMS range 6.6–12.910.7%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 discharge66.0%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 discharge59.6%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 discharge53.2%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 identified99.1%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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 discharge97.3%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 stay1.8%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 worsened0.0%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 hospitalization5.7%CMS range 3.3–11.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.991.02Oct 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

1.01
RN hours/ resident / day
0.86
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.29
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.16
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.70
RN hoursweekends
29.1%
Total nursing turnover
18.8%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 83 beds and averages 64.5 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.16 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.01 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.29 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 3.57 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.39 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.14 to 0.70 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-13)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2025-03-05)

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · F2025-03-05 · 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 and beverages stored in the refrigerators, were labeled, dated and discarded properly. Further, the facility failed to maintain proper holding food temperatures during the noon meal on the Pines unit. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 59 residents who received food and beverages from the refrigerators. Findings include: On 3/3/25 at 11:05 p.m., during the kitchen tour with the dietary manager(DM), the following concerns were identified: Kitchen refrigerator: -half of a large container of orange sauce with a black crusty substance around the lid with an open date of 1/6/25. -half of a large container of barbeque sauce with a crusty black substance around the lid without a notation of an open date and an expiration date of 1/6/25. - one chicken salad sandwich without notation of a date. - three bowls of pureed bread without notation of a date. -bottle of staff pop without notation of a date. Freezer: -six pork sausages in a bag without notation of an opening date. Food temps:…

    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 · D2025-03-05 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to notify the Long Term Care (LTC) ombudsman of a facility initiated transfer for 1 of 1 residents (R64) who was transferred to an acute care facility on an emergency basis reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: R64's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R64 had severe cognitive impairment and had diagnoses which included right femur (long bone in the leg) fracture, cancer, and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). Identified R64 required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Review of R64's progress notes dated 12/3/24, revealed the following: -on 12/3/24 at 5:35 p.m., R64 was seated in the dining room in his wheelchair eating supper. R64 stood up from the wheelchair and as R64 went to sit back down the wheelchair rolled away and R64 landed on the floor and a loud crack was heard. R64 was unable to move his right leg and had shortening of the right…

    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 · Dcited before2025-03-05 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 timely assistance with repositioning occurred for 1 of 5 residents (R2) with a current pressure ulcer and at risk for further development of pressure ulcers. Findings include: R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R2 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (elevated blood pressure) and dementia. Identified R2 required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Identified R2 had two pressure ulcers and was on a repositioning program. R2's annual Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 10/22/24, identified R2 was a at risk for skin breakdown and had a pressure ulcer to her left heel. Identified R2 required extensive assistance to reposition in bed and in the wheelchair. R2's care plan dated 4/25/24, identified R2 had a pressure ulcer on her left heel. Care plan directed staff 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-22 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palatable and appetizing temperature for 4 of 4 residents (R 21, R29, R48 and R52) who resided on the Pines unit reviewed for food. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 42 residents residing on this unit. Findings include: R21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had intact cognition ad was able to feed herself after staff set up her tray. R29's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R29 had intact cognition and could feed himself after staff set up his tray. R48's admission MDS dated [DATE], indicated R48 had impaired cognition and required staff supervision to eat. R52's significant change MDS dated [DATE], indicated R52 had intact cognition ad could feed herself after staff set up her tray. During an interview on 5/20/24 at 1:05 p.m., R52 stated the food was often cold. During an interview on 5/20/24 at 1:25 p.m., R29 stated the food did not taste very good and 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-22 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — pattern
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    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 4 of 5 residents (R6, R36, R41 and R44) received pneumococcal vaccinations based on shared clinical decision-making in accordance with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: Review of the current CDC recommendations 3/15/2023, revealed The CDC identified Adults [AGE] years of age or older received the (PPSV23) or (PCV13) at any age and who have not received the Pneumo 20-valent conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) should receive a dose of the PCV20 at least one year after the most recent PPSV23 or PCV13 vaccine. In addition, the CDC identified adults 65 and older who had previously received both PCV13 and PPSV23 at age [AGE] and older, based on shared clinical decision-making with the patient and the provider one dose of PCV20 at least five years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose. Review of R6's facesheet identified R6, age [AGE] was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R6'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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-22 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    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 comprehensively assess the use of a restrictive device as a potential restraint for 1 of 1 resident (R6) reviewed for restraints. Findings include: Review of R6's annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], identified R6 had severe cognitive impairment and had diagnoses which included Parkinson's, Diabetes Mellitus, and anxiety disorder. Indicated R6 required extensive assistance for activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Identified R6 had one fall with no injury since the last assessment, three months prior and required a wheelchair for mobility. Indicated R6 did not use any restraints. Review of R6's annual Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 3/6/24, identified R6 had severe cognitive impairment, was a high fall risk and had one fall with no injury since last assessment. CAA identified R6 did not use any restraints. Review of R6's quarterly fall assessment dated [DATE], identified R6 was at…

    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 · D2024-05-22 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were implemented to prevent potential fluid retention for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for quality of care. Findings include: R33's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R33 was cognitively intact. Diagnoses included atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Review of Nurse practitioner (NP) signed orders from 4/1/24, revealed an active order for Torsemide (loop diuretic to treat fluid retention and high blood pressure) oral tablet 20 milligrams (mg). Order to give 20 mg one tablet by mouth PRN (as needed) for weight gain > three pounds (lbs) overnight or > five lbs in seven days every day as needed. Order date 3/6/24, start date 3/6/24. Review of the electronic medication administration record (EMAR) dated 3/6/24, the Torsemide order was added to the EMAR. Order read: Torsemide oral tablet 20 mg give one tablet by mouth as needed for weight gain >three lbs overnight or > five lbs in seven days every…

    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 · Dcited before2024-05-22 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 timely assistance with repositioning occurred for 1 of 5 residents (R6) with a history of pressure ulcers and at risk for further development of pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of R6's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R6 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included Parkinson's, Diabetes Mellitus, and anxiety disorder. Indicated R6 required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Identified R6 had a turning and repositioning program, was at risk for pressure ulcers and had a scar over a bony prominence from a previous pressure ulcer. R6's annual Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 3/6/24, identified R6 was at risk for skin breakdown related to diagnosis of Parkinson's, anxiety, and diabetes mellitus (DM). Identified R6 required extensive assistance with ADL's. R6's care plan dated 8/6/2019, identified R6 was at…

    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 · D2024-05-22 · 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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess smoking safety for 1 of 1 residents (R38) who currently smoked. Findings include: R38's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R38 was moderately cognitively impaired and had diagnoses which included tracheostomy (also known as a tracheotomy, was a small surgical opening that was made through the front of the neck into the windpipe, or trachea. A curved plastic tube, known as a tracheostomy tube, was placed through the hole allowing air to flow in and out of the windpipe) anxiety, depression, history of falling, weakness, hypertension (high blood pressure) and history of alcohol dependence. Identified R38 was independent with transfers, toileting, bed mobility, locomotion with use of cane, dressing and personal hygiene. The MDS did not identify R38 as a smoker. R38's care plan prior to 5/21/24, lacked documentation R38 was a cigarette smoker. On 5/21/24, R38's care plan was then updated 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-22 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    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 maintain personal privacy for 4 of 4 residents (R1, R4, R5, R6) who had video monitoring devices in their bedrooms as an intervention to prevent falls and elopement. Findings include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], identified intact cognition, diagnosis of a stroke with wandering tendencies that placed R1 at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place (e.g. outside facility, stairs). R1 used a walker and a wheelchair for mobility, impairment of lower extremity on one side, and required supervision with transfers, locomotion on and off unit, dressing, personal hygiene, toileting, and always continent of bowel and bladder. R1's care plan dated 9/18/23, identified R1 elopement risk and video monitor used along with wander guard applied. R1 resided in alarmed unit and staff were directed to check wander guard every shift. R4's significant change MDS dated [DATE], identified severely impaired cognition 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2026-05-13 · tag F0572 — widespread
    Give residents a notice of rights, rules, services and charges.
    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 ensure the resident bill of rights ([NAME]) were provided verbally and in writing for all the facility residents, this had the potential to affect all 63 residents in the facility. Findings Include:On 5/12/26 at 10:33 a.m., Resident Council Minutes Forms were reviewed for 2/24/26, 3/26/26, and 4/16/26. The minutes lacked documentation that the [NAME] were reviewed. On 5/12/26, at 11:15 a.m., seven residents (R61, R62, R35, R24, R21, R17, R18) were present at a resident council meeting held by surveyor. When questioned if the resident ([NAME]) had been reviewed, the residents present stated the rights had not been reviewed. R61 stated she thought [NAME] was given at time of admission, and they were posted in the facility. R62 indicated had been admitted years ago and was not coherent at that time. The residents indicated they would like them to be reviewed. At 11:45 a.m. the [NAME] poster near the nurses' station was reviewed and was dated 9/19, not 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 Rights Deficiencies · No revisit needed
  • No harm found · C2026-05-13 · tag F0732 — widespread
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all required information was included daily on the facility staff posting. This had the potential to affect all 63 residents in the facility and their visitors who may wish to view the information.Findings include:The staff schedule and facility staff posting documentation dated 4/13/26-5/13/26, was reviewed and failed to include all of the following requirements for the daily staff posting: 1) Facility Name 2) Current Date 3) Facility Census (clearly identifiable) 4) Total number of actual hours worked by licensed staff. 5) Total number licensed staff, and their designation or title.From 4/13/26-5/12/26, the facility staff posting contained: the date, the total number of licensed staff and their designation. However it lacked the total number of actual hours worked by licensed staff, the name of the facility, and the census number (clearly identified as such). On 5/13/26 at 9:00 a.m., the senior manager of scheduling operations stated they were responsible for updating and posting the daily facility…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · No revisit needed

“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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to VIVIE — 5 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 5 of 53.4+1.6 vs chain
Health inspection 5 of 53.4+1.6 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.2+0.8 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 53.4+1.6 vs chain
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)

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
VIVIEOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 01/01/2024
ANDERSON, MARKIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/01/2004
GUGISBERG, MARNIEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/11/2005
PERRY, KATIEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/01/2023
URMAN, ANGELAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/16/2010
BILLBERG, GREGIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/01/2022
CARLSON, PAMELAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/15/2017
COAUETTE, CHADIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/15/2017
CRITZ, JULIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/01/2020
JODSAAS, VICKIIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/01/2021
MONTGOMERY, JEFFIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/15/2018
O'KANE, SARAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/01/2023
STEFFL, DEENAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/15/2016
HANSON, PHILLIPIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
SEMMER, FREDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
WOLF, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/15/2015

CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner 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.

$30.7M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-6.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 9%Medicare 27%Other / private 64%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$334per resident / day
operating cost
$10,152per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$312per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in 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 245435. 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