Browns Valley Health Center
114 Jefferson Street South, Browns Valley, MN 56219 · Non profit - Corporation · 31 certified beds · (320) 695-2165 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $26,685 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-04)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.0% | 18.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.1% | 4.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.7% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.8% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 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 | 1.9% | 4.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.0% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.2% | 12.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 5.2% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.2% | 24.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 28.7% | 17.1% | 17.1% | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 31 beds and averages 27.6 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.19 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.57 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.44 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-03-04 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to protect 1 of 1 resident (R1) from abuse when nurse aid (NA)-B physically and verbally abused R1 during cares. This resulted in serious psychosocial harm for R1 who became withdrawn, had a decreased appetite, and increased crying following the incident. The IJ began on 2/21/26 at 7:45 p.m., when NA-B was witnessed to make derogatory statements, used foul and aggressive language, and slapped R1 on the backside. NA-B was not removed from shift and continued to work with R1 and other vulnerable residents despite an internal report being made. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on 3/4/25 at 1:00 p.m. The facility implemented corrective action by 2/25/25 prior to the start of the survey and therefore is issued as past non-compliance. Findings include: Facility incident report submitted 2/22/26 at 4:22 p.m., identified on 2/22/26 at 2:00 p.m., staff reported R1 was more tearful today with a decreased appetite. on-call…
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 · D2026-04-21 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained for 2 fo 2 residents (R2, R6 ) who were reviewed for activity of daily living (ADLs).R2's quarterly minimal data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderate cognitive impairment, and had a diagnosis that included heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes. R2 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) such as dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene, including shaving and combing hair. R2's care plan revised on 12/17/25, identified R2 required assistance from staff with personal hygiene. R2 had impaired cognitive function. R2's care sheet dated 4/21/26, identified R2 required assistance from staff with personal hygiene. During an observation on 4/20/26 at 6:31 p.m., R2 had facial hair approximately 1 millimeter (mm) on chin. R2 was unable to verbalize whether the facial hair bothered her. During an observation on 4/21/26 at 8:39 a.m., R2 had facial hair approximately 1 mm on chin. During…
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 · D2026-03-04 · 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 documents review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency (SA) within two hours for 1 of 1 resident (R1) who was witnessed being verbally and physically abused by NA-B. Finding include:Facility incident report submitted 2/22/26 at 4:22 p.m., identified on 2/22/26 at 2:00 p.m. Staff reported R1 was more tearful today with a decreased appetite. on-call nurse received a call from charge nurse and inquired if anything had been reported regarding concern from the previous evening shift. DON and administrator were notified, and investigation started. It was explained that on 2/21/26 at 7:45 p.m., two staff were caring for R1, the trained medication assistant (TMA)-A was outside R1's door and heard NA-B speaking loudly and demandingly to R1. Following, TMA-A asked NA-A who was in the room with her, what happened and stated NA-B was assisting R1 with perineal cares, R1 swung her arms twice at staff during the care and NA-B started raising her voice at R1 and used…
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 · D2026-03-04 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide sufficient resident protections and assessment following an allegation of abuse for 1 of 1 resident (R1) following a staff to resident abuse allegation. Additionally, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation following a staff to resident abuse allegation for 1 of 1 resident (R1) when only verbally responsive residents were interviewed for concerns of abuse.Findings include: Facility incident report submitted 2/22/26 at 4:22 p.m., identified on 2/22/26 at 2:00 p.m. Staff reported R1 was more tearful today with a decreased appetite. on-call nurse received a call from charge nurse and inquired if anything had been reported regarding concern from the previous evening shift. DON and administrator were notified, and investigation started. It was explained that on 2/21/26 at 7:45 p.m., two staff were caring for R1, the trained medication assistant (TMA)-A was outside R1's door and heard NA-B speaking loudly and demandingly to R1.…
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 · F2025-03-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 staff wore hair restraints in the kitchen. Further, the facility failed to ensure food and beverages stored in the refrigerators, were labeled, dated and discarded properly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 28 residents who received food and beverages from the refrigerators and the kitchen. Findings include: Hair nets: On 3/10/25 at 12:02 p.m., dietary manager (DM) was standing at the dishwasher pulling clean dishes out of the dishwasher. DM hair was approximately 1/4 inch in length and was not wearing any type of a hair restraint. On 3/10/25 at 12:05 p.m., during the kitchen tour with the (DM), the following concerns were identified: Kitchen refrigerator: -Several slices of ham on a plate wrapped in saran wrap with a date of 2/28/25. Freezer -10 hamburger patty's in a bag without notation of an open date. Resident refrigerator and freezer on the unit: Fridge: -one slice of apple pie covered with saran wrap on a plate without notation of a date. -3/4 jar of salsa with a black…
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 · E2025-03-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to disinfect a multi-use glucometer( a machine that is used for blood glucose monitoring) after use for 2 of 2 residents (R11, R6) reviewed for blood glucose monitoring. This deficient practice had the ability to affect all 9 residents who required blood glucose monitoring. Findings include: The Centers for disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Infection Prevention for Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration dated 2/6/2013, identified due to the risk of transmitting infectious diseases during assisted blood glucose (blood sugar) monitoring whenever possible, blood glucose meters should not be shared. If they must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions. R11 R11's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R11 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included, arthritis, dementia, and diabetes mellitus DM). Identified R11 required staff assistance…
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 · D2025-03-12 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed during medication set-up and administration of insulin with a Humalog insulin pen ( rapid-acting insulin, used to improve blood sugar control in people with diabetes mellitus) for 1 of 1 residents (R11) who received insulin without the pen primed according to manufacturer's recommendations. Findings include: R11's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R11 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included arthritis, dementia, and diabetes mellitus (DM) and received injections of insulin. R11's care plan dated 10/7/24, identified R11 had DM and staff were to administer diabetic medications as ordered. R11's Order Summary Report signed 2/28/25, identified Humalog Kwik Pen 100 units per milliliter (ml) subcutaneous (an injection into the fatty tissue) per sliding scale ( a scale that identifies how much insulin to administer per blood glucose…
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 · F2024-04-17 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for licensed practical nursing staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data, during 1 of 1 quarters reviewed (Quarter 1), to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) according to specifications established by CMS. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 27 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the Payroll Based Journal Report (PBJ) [NAME] Report 1705 D identified the following dates triggered for review: 10/01/23, 10/03/23, 10/07/23, 10/08/23,1 0/10/23, 10/12/23, 10/14/23, 10/15/23, 10/17/23, 10/21/23, 10/22/23, 10/23/23, 10/26/23, 10/28/23, 10/29/23, 10/31/23, 11/04/23, 11/05/23, 11/10/23, 11/11/23, 11/12/23, 11/14/23, 11/17/23, 11/18/23, 11/19/23, 11/21/23, 12/02/23, 12/03/23, 12/09/23, 12/10/23, 12/12/23, 12/19/23, 12/23/23, 12/24/23, 12/29/23, 12/30/23, and 12/31/23, for failure to have licensed nurse coverage 24 hours per day. Review of staffing schedules from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-17 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure proper wheelchair positioning was implemented for 1 of 1 residents (R4) observed to have concerns with positioning. In addition, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and implement interventions for 1 of 1 residents (R16) observed with edema (excess of watery fluid collection in tissues of body). Findings include: POSITIONING R4's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R4 had severe cognitive impairment with diagnoses which included: dementia, arthritis, and low back pain. Indicated R4 used a wheelchair with substantial/maximal assistance to wheel 50 feet, and was dependent to wheel 150 feet. R4's care plan dated 4/17/24, identified R4 required a Hoyer (mechanical) lift to transfer, a manual wheelchair with interventions that included: needed assistance with wheelchair, clear obstacles from pathway, and staff to propel from one destination to another. During an observation on 4/15/24 at 4:31 p.m., R4 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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
$26,685 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $26,685 — penalty dated 2026-03-04
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ST. FRANCIS HEALTH SERVICES — 14 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
The other 13 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, 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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRIPPS, DANIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2016 |
| EHLERS, DOUGLAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2023 |
| GOODNOUGH, JENNIFER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| GRAMM, TIMOTHY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2023 |
| LAIR, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| LIENEMANN, STEVEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| LUETMER, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| NELSON, PATRICK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2020 |
| RENTZ, LAURA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| RENTZ, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| SCHNEIDER, TODD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2013 |
| WIESE, LORRAINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/25/2017 |
| BACH, CURTIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/28/2024 |
| PETERSON-DEVRIES, CAMI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/08/2022 |
| RAW, CAROL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/16/2005 |
| BIG STONE THERAPIES, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/03/2015 |
| EIDE BAILLY LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/03/2023 |
| ST. FRANCIS HEALTH SERVICES OF MORRIS, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/1990 |
| BAKKE, CHRISTINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2019 |
| BEUMER, JUDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| CASPERS, MEGAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/29/2014 |
| EHRP, SAMUEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/06/2024 |
| HANNEKEN, MICHELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/20/2022 |
| HECK, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/27/2014 |
| HEJHAL, ROXANNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2023 |
| HERZOG, AUTUMN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/12/2012 |
| HOFMANN, REED | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/08/2023 |
| HUSETH, KENDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/26/2024 |
| JOHNSON, TODD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| KANE, TRACIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/22/2003 |
| MARLOW, JINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/06/2022 |
| RAW, ANDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2009 |
| RENTZ, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/22/2024 |
| RYAN, BEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/27/2012 |
| SANFORD, MELINDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/27/2015 |
| STERLING, APRIL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/21/2018 |
| STOCK, KELSEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2022 |
| THOMPSON, RENEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/10/2018 |
| TOMOSON, APRIL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/12/2021 |
| WALKER, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/13/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 86 rows in the source record cover these 40 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 77% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $150K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in 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 245564. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-21, 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.