Appleton Area Health
30 S Behl St, Appleton, MN 56208 · Government - City · 47 certified beds · (320) 289-2422 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.0% | 18.2% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 4.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.4% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.3% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.2% | 4.1% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.4% | 4.0% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.8% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.4% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 5.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 24.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.0% | 17.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 47 beds and averages 28.3 residents a day — about 60% occupied, or roughly 19 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.81 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.07 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.16 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-15 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed during administration of eye drops for 1 of 1 resident (R29) observed for medication administration.Findings include: According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, Tips For Administering Eye Drops dated 8/2010, if more than one drop has been ordered, wait three to four minutes before putting another drop into the same eye. When administering multiple eye medications, wait five to fifteen minutes before delivering send medication to the same eye in order to prevent dilution. R29's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R29 as cognitively intact and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). R29 had a diagnosis of diabetes and hypertension (high blood pressure). R29's admission record printed 4/15/26, identified R29 had a diagnosis of dry eye syndrome, and degeneration (eye disease that affects vision). R29's care plan revised…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions were revised and implemented as needed for 1 of 3 residents (R1) who was at risk of elopement and was demonstrating consistent behavior for elopement.Findings include:R1's admission Record indicated R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, unspecified dementia with other behavioral disturbances.R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderate cognitive impairment and a wander/elopement alarm was used daily.R1's care plan dated 11/13/25 indicated R1 had impaired thought processes related to vascular dementia and history of cerebral infarction, potential wandering and exit seeking to go home. Interventions included cue, reorient and supervise as needed, keep R1's routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible, wander guard on wheelchair related to comments about leaving and wanting to go home. The care plan section related to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to supervise 1 of 3 residents (R1) at risk for elopement when R1 was able to leave the facility without staff knowledge despite while wearing a wander guard pendent, which was not placed according to Manufacturers Guidelines and did not alert staff. Findings include:R1's admission Record indicated R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, unspecified dementia with other behavioral disturbances.R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderate cognitive impairment and a wander/elopement alarm was used daily.R1's care plan dated 1/11/26 indicated R1 was an elopement risk related to history of attempts to leave facility unattended, impaired safety awareness, disease process (dementia), memory impairment. Interventions included distracting R1 with pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, and books. Document wandering behaviors and attempted diversional…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
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 facility failed to develop mental health strategies for 1of 3 resident (R1) who experience agitation related to a desire to go home. Findings include:R1's admission Record indicated R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, unspecified dementia with other behavioral disturbances.R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderate cognitive impairment and a wander/elopement alarm was used daily.R1's care plan dated 1/11/26 indicated R1 was an elopement risk related to history of attempts to leave facility unattended, impaired safety awareness, disease process (dementia), memory impairment. Interventions included distracting R1 with pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, and books. Document wandering behaviors and attempted diversional interventions in behavior log.R1's care plan dated 11/13/25 indicated R1 had impaired thought processes related to vascular dementia and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-01-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 interview and document review the facility failed to have a current, ongoing system of surveillance to identify potential outbreaks of infectious disease, ensure transmission-based precautions (TBP) were implemented timely, perform root cause analysis with contact tracking to identify patterns of illness in staff or residents, and prohibit staff from returning to work prematurely following identified symptoms. This had the potential to affect all 33 residents in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 whirlpool tub was appropriately disinfected between resident use according to the manufacturer's directions. This had the potential to affect 10 of 32 residents who used the whirlpool tub. Findings include: SURVEILLANCE RESIDENTS Review of the December 2024, resident infection control log identified the facility experienced a COVID-19 outbreak between (December 15, 2024, through January 20, 2025). 17 of 32 residents were identified as testing positive for COVID-19 between December…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-29 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive antibiotic stewardship program with antibiotic Time Outs (ATO) (formal review of a patient's antibiotic therapy that occurs 48-72 hours after the initial dose), or evaluation of continued need for antibiotic treatment for 3 of 3 residents (R6, R15 and R28). This has the potential to affect any resident receiving antibiotic treatment. Findings include: Interview and document review identified: R6's medical record (MR) identified a 1/18/24, physician (MD) order for Macrobid (an antibiotic used to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs)), 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth (PO) every (Q) evening (PM), for UTI prevention. The medical record failed to identify any urine cultures or sensitivity (UC/US) completed following the MD order, and no ATO for continued need of the medication. The record also failed to identify any non-pharmacological interventions attempted. R15's medical record identified a 1/21/25 MD orders for Macrobid 100 mg PO x 5 days for UTI. The record failed to include any criteria implemented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-29 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement 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
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 residents (R32) was reassessed for as needed (PRN) anti-anxiety medication (diazepam) every 14 days to ensure the appropriateness of continued use. Findings include: R32's 10/8/24, Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) identified R32 had a diagnoses of Alzheimer's and dementia with agitation. R32 was cognitively impaired and was administered antipsychotic, antianxiety and antidepressant medication daily. R32's diazepam was ordered on 11/8/24 and started the same day, however, there was no indication the physician (MD) had limited the order for 14 days to ensure it was reviewed for continuation. R32's December 2024, Medication Administration Record (MAR) identified diazepam 5 milligram (mg) was to be given by mouth every 8 hours as needed for agitation, physical aggression, and restlessness beginning 11/08/24. The MAR lacked documentation of an end date. R32's Progress note identified on: 1) 11/26/24, the physician ordered PRN diazepam and was to be reviewed in 14 days. 2) 11/26/24, the pharmacist's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-11-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to act on a positive tuberculosis (TB) test result for 1 of 5 staff (housekeeping (HSK)-A) tested for active TB upon hire. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure any person or persons with a positive history of TB was added to surveillance to mitigate potential risks for spread of possible active TB. This had the potential to affect all 43 residents, other staff, and visitors. Findings include: Review of housekeep (H)-A's employee file identified on 3/15/23, H-A's baseline TB Screening and questionnaire identified H-A had no symptoms of active TB however, it was identified that H-A had lived in Micronesia, and it was unknown if Micronesia had a high TB rate. Review of the National Library of Medicine (NIH) website, located at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000724, identified the Federated States of Micronesia is a US-affiliated jurisdiction that comprises more than 600 islands dotted across 1 million square miles in the western Pacific Ocean. Micronesia is a low-income country where 27% of the people live…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan with individualized communication intervention for 1 of 1 (R19) resident reviewed. Findings include: R19's 11/7/23, admission record identified diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of body) following a stroke, dysphasia (difficulty speaking) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). R19's 10/3/23, revised care plan identified a communication deficit as R19 was from Micronesia and only understanding simple words of English. Staff were to get R19's attention by making eye contact, and show or point in direction R19 was going to roll in bed. R19 was able to indicate yes or no by shaking her head in that gesture. R19 preferred to communicate in Micronesian. The facility was to provide a translator as necessary to communicate with resident. The translator was identified as a family member (FM)-A. Staff may call the FM-A or face time FM-A to translate. There was no mention of how the staff would communicate if they were unable to contact FM-A. There was no mention of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-08 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 comprehensively assess and obtain informed consent, prior to resident use of bed rails for 1 of 1 resident (R23) reviewed for bed rail use. Findings include: R23's 8/31/23, annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R23's cognition was intact, R23 required moderate to substantial assistance with personal hygiene. R23 required supervision to get from a lying to sitting position on the bed and R23 was able to stand independently from a sitting position. R23 was identified in section P of the MDS as having no bed rails used. R23's undated, care plan identified R23 used a lift chair recliner to maximize independence with repositioning. Occupational therapy has assessed R23's use of the lift chair for safety. Staff were to respect R23's right to sleep in his recliner if choosing not to sleep in the bed. There was no mention of the bilateral 1/2 side rails on R23's bed. R23's 6/1/23, Safety Risk Assessment identified history of low back pain currently controlled with spinal stimulator. R23 had urge…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-08 · tag F0868 — isolatedHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 required member (infection preventionist) and/or their designee attended and documented the attendance at the quarterly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. Findings include: Review of the January 2023, through July 2023, quarterly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting minutes attendance record did not identify the facility infection preventionist was present at the second quarter meeting held in April 2023. Interview on 11/7/23 at 3:48 p.m., with the infection preventionist (IP) identified he was an interim IP who was to be responsible for covering the IP role until the new infection preventionist started. He confirmed he had not attended any of the QAPI meeting but he should be while covering the position. Interview on 11/8/23 at 8:25 a.m., with the director of nursing (DON) identified the IP could not make it to the April meeting. Normally, if the IP could not make it, they would delegate someone to cover the information and that was to be documented in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-08 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop 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 1 of 5 residents (R23) were appropriately vaccinated against pneumonia. Furthermore, the facility failed to have a method or system to ensure the facility offer or provided any initial or updated vaccine to residents per Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vaccination recommendations. Findings include: Review of the current CDC pneumococcal vaccine guidelines located at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/pneumo/hcp/pneumo-vaccine-timing.html, identified for: Adults [AGE] years of age or older, staff were to offer and/or provide based off previous vaccination status as shown below: a) If NO history of vaccination, offer and/or provide: aa) the PCV-20 OR bb) PCV-15 followed by PPSV-23 at least 1 year later. b) For PPSV-23 vaccine ONLY (at any age): aa) PCV-20 at least 1 year after prior PPSV-23 OR bb) PCV-15 at least 1 year after prior PPSV-23 c) For PCV-13 vaccine ONLY (at any age): aa) PCV-20 at least 1 year after prior PCV13 OR bb) PPSV-23 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse timely to the State Agency for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for allegations of abuse. Findings include: An anonymous Vulnerable Adult Maltreatment Report submitted to the State Agency on 10/25/23, alleged staff to resident sexual abuse when it was reported a caregiver touched R1's genitals. R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had diagnoses of dementia and Parkinson's disease. R1 had severe cognitive impairment, no hallucinations, and did not reject cares. The MDS also noted R1was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, dressing, and transfers. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 10:10 a.m., R1 indicated he had an issue with one staff but the staff person did not work with him anymore. R1 stated had already answered alot of questions and didn't want to answer anymore. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 11:10 a.m., family member (FM)-A indicated on 10//21/23, R1 reported he was having an issue…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CITY OF APPLETON | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/1954 |
| MINER, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/27/2024 |
| KELLER, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/06/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 3 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.
What families pay in MN
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.
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 245231. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-15, 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.