Clara City Care Center
1012 North Division Street, Clara City, MN 56222 · Government - City · 48 certified beds · (320) 847-2221 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $13,260 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-23)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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 — 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 4 to 2 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 | 12.1% | 18.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 4.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 11.7% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.3% | 20.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 3.7% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 14.7% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.2% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.7% | 17.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
69.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 25 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
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 | 69.4%CMS range 50.2–81.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 5.5–14.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at 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 | 0.77 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-10-23 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure doors were secured and failed to implement individualized interventions to prevent/reduce the risk of elopement for 1 of 3 residents (R1) who had a history of exit seeking behaviors. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) when R1 eloped from the facility through two unsecured doors and the wander guard alarm did not work. R1 was later found and returned to the facility by a passerby. The IJ began on 10/13/25, when staff failed to identify doors were not secured and failed to develop and implement appropriate interventions when R1 displayed exit seeking behaviors and left the building unwitnessed. The director of nursing (DON) was notified of the IJ on 10/22/25 at 3:05 p.m. The IJ was removed on 10/23/25 at 4:15 p.m., when the facility implemented immediate corrective action to prevent recurrence, but noncompliance remained at a lower scope and severity of D with no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that was not…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-07-16 · 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 interview, observation and document review, the facility failed to ensure safe use of a mechanical lift per manufacturer's recommendations to transfer 1 of 11 residents (R1), who required a mechanical lift for transfers. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) when R1 fell from a full body mechanical lift causing R1 to suffer fractures to her cervical spine (C1 and C6), nasal cavity, and left femur as well as lacerations to facial area requiring hospital admission. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a system for completed comprehensive assessments for sling size and/or care plan development for 9 of 11 residents (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R8, R9, R10, R11) reviewed who required mechanical lifts. The IJ began on [DATE], when staff failed to ensure the lift sling was properly secured and the environment was clear prior to the transfer causing R1 to fall from the mechanical lift. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on [DATE] at 4:20 p.m. The IJ was removed on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-12-04 · 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 interview and record review the facility failed to adequately supervise a resident to reduce the risk of falls for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for accidents and supervision. R1 had a chair alarm that would sound when R1 would stand. The chair alarm prompted staff to respond to R1 after standing. R1 was found on her bathroom floor, transferred to the hospital with a left hip fracture.Findings include: According to the State Operations Manual, Appendix PP - Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, Rev. 229, Issued: 04/25/25 supervision is an intervention and a means of mitigating accident risk. Facilities are obligated to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents. Adequacy of supervision is defined by type and frequency, based on the individual resident's assessed needs, and identified hazards in the resident environment. Adequate supervision may vary from resident to resident and from time to time for the same resident. Devices such as position change alarms may help to monitor a…
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 · F2026-04-01 · 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 refrigerated food items were properly labeled, dated, and closed after the packaging was opened to prevent cross contamination which had the potential to affect all 28 residents currently residing in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure refrigerated food items were disposed of after the expiration date or opened per facility policy. Findings Include:During the initial tour of the main kitchen on 3/30/26 at 12:36 p.m., with the dietary manager (DM)-A, the following areas of concern were identified and confirmed by DM-A:Upright refrigerator:-small disposable covered container of cake dated 3/5/26.-plastic half bag of salami slices, opened, undated.Walk In refrigerator:-opened gallon plastic container of ranch dressing, undated, expiration date of 9/25/25. -opened container of thousand island dressing, undated, expiration date 3/21/26.During a follow up interview on 3/31/26 at 1:33 p.m., DM-A stated most items that were opened should be disposed of after seven days. DM-A confirmed her…
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 · D2025-10-23 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on document review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R2) reviewed for elopement. Findings include: R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R1's face sheet dated 10/22/25, indicated diagnoses of dementia, depression, and anxiety.R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had mild cognitive impairment and required staff assistance for activities of daily living with transfers and ambulation. R1 used a wheelchair for locomotion. R1's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE], identified at risk for elopement related to resident being independent in wheelchair locomotion, cognitive impairment and making statements that he was leaving. R1 was at risk for elopement. R1's care plan dated 9/26/25, identified an elopement problem. The care plan indicated R1 was a t risk for elopement related to making statement of leaving to go home. The goal was for R1 to not elope from the facility during the next 90 days. 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 · Ecited before2025-02-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an environment that was free of accident hazards, related to hot water temperatures in 6 of 6 resident rooms ( R9, R11, R16, R28, R31, R32,) tested for safe water temperatures. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 6 residents who used water from the water faucets. Findings include: On 2/24/25 at 11:00 a.m., during resident screening the water temperatures in R9, R11, R16, R28, R31, and R32's rooms felt very warm to the touch after running water for one minute. During an observation and interview on 2/24/25 at 11:28 a.m., maintenance director (MD) verified the water in R9, R11, R16, R28, R31 and R32's room felt too hot and used the facility digital thermometer to measure the water temperatures in resident rooms. Water temperatures were as follows: -R9's room [ROOM NUMBER] was 129 degrees F. -R11 room [ROOM NUMBER] was 129 degrees F. -R16 room [ROOM NUMBER] was 129 degrees F. -R28 room [ROOM NUMBER] was 129…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 R16 R16's significant change MDS dated [DATE], identified R16 had severe cognitive impairment with diagnoses which included, Alzheimer's disease, heart failure, and anxiety. Identified R16 required substantial/maximal assistance with shower/bathing and upper body dressing, and was dependent for lower body dressing and transfers. R16's care plan revised 2/18/25, identified R16 had ADL self care deficit and needed assistance to complete ADLs. R16 required EBP, related to: open draining wounds to right lower extremity and was at risk of developing a multi-drug resistant organism/infection. Interventions included apply personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to providing wound care. Remove before leaving R16's room. R16's care plan lacked EBP intervention to include use of PPE with all high contact resident care activities. R16's Referral Form signed 2/7/25, included order: -wound on right leg-cleanse wound with wound cleaner, apply collagen (wound gel to promote healing) to wound beds, apply non-adherent super…
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 · D2024-05-15 · 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 record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (R1) were treated with dignity and respect. Findings include: Review of facility reported incident dated 5/14/24, indicated trained medication aide (TMA-C) was administering R1's morning medications one 5/11/24, when nursing assistant (NA-L) asked if R1 was ready for breakfast. TMA-C stated R1 was finishing her Miralax (a laxative) when NA-L lunged toward R1 from behind R1 and grabbed the cup out of R1's hand when R1 refused to give up the cup. R1 screamed very loudly Damn it stop and leave me alone and continued to hold the cup fiercely. NA-L was hanging on to the cup tightly and TMA-C was trying to get the cup away from both R1 and NA-L. NA-L stated R1 did not need the Miralax right before she attempted to take the cup away from R1. R1 was visibly shaking and upset. R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment, with diagnoses that included altered mental status,…
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 · F2024-03-06 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave 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 the required members and/or their designee attended the quarterly meetings for 3 of 4 quarterly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. Findings include: Review of the quarter 1 QAPI meeting attendance form for 1/10/23, identified the facility administrator was not present at the meeting. There was no documentation related to his absence and if there had been someone designated in his absence. Review of the quarter 3 QAPI meeting attendance form for 7/11/23, identified the facility infection preventionist was not present at the meeting. There was no documentation related to her absence and if there had been someone designated in her absence. Review of the quarter 4 QAPI meeting attendance form for 10/24/23, identified the facility administrator was not present at the meeting. There was no documentation related to his absence and if there had been someone designated in his absence. Interview on 3/4/24 at 2:42 p.m., with the director of nursing confirmed that the administrator had not been present…
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 · Ecited before2024-03-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure alcoholic beverages were secure in 1 of 1 resident refrigerator located in the east dining room. This had the potential to affect 4 out of 20 residents with diagnoses of dementia and with known confusion that ate in the east dining room (R21, R24, R27, R30) Findings include: Observation on 3/4/24 at 11:46 a.m., of the east dining room refrigerator identified 3 cans of Michelob Ultra left in a 12 pack, 5 bottles of [NAME] light in refrigerator door, and 1 bottle of Michelob golden. The refrigerator was unsecured, and all residents had access to the refrigerator. Interview on 3/4/24 at 3:18 p.m., with activity director identified the facility typically held activities in the west dining room related to some sound issues. She reported that the activity department did utilize the resident refrigerator in the east dining room. She stated that the facility did have a monthly activity called the Ritz where she invited all the residents…
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 · D2024-03-06 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain and monitor their system for the the disposition and security of emergency medication kits (E-kit) that contained controlled and/or narcotic substances for 1 of 3 E-kits to immediately detect and reconcile to prevent potential drug diversion. Findings include: Observation and interview on 3/5/24 at 10:02 a.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A of the facility's large emergency kit (E-kit) located in the medication room inside the medication cupboard was an attached inventory record that identified controlled medication of Morphine oral solution 10 mg/0.5 ml, lorazepam for injection 2 mg/ml injection, hydrocodone/APAP (Norco) 5/325 mg, and lorazepam 0.5 mg tablet. The large E-kit had a plastic lock with the number 1249464. A small red emergency kit also located in medication room cupboard with an attached inventory record identified controlled medications of Hydrocodone/APAP (Norco) 5/325 mg tables quantity 6, morphine oral solution syringe 10 mg/0.5 ml quantity 6 syringes, oxycodone oral tablet…
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 · D2024-03-06 · 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 offer and/or administer the most recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) pneumococcal vaccine for 2 of 5 residents (R23 and R24) reviewed for immunizations. 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…
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
$13,260 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 2 Medicare payment denials on record.
- $13,260 — penalty dated 2025-10-23
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-01-01 for 13 days
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-07-16 for 28 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| JURGENSON, CINDY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/18/2019 |
| BLUM, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/15/2019 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
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 245573. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-01, 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.