Essentia Health Oak Crossing
1040 Lincoln Avenue, Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 · Non profit - Corporation · 84 certified beds · (218) 844-0700 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)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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 $7,446 in federal fines (most recent 2023-11-22)
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 10.4% | 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 | 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 | 2.9% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.1% | 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 | 5.8% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.8% | 20.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.7% | 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 | 21.6% | 24.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.7% | 17.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.9% | 82.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.1% | 23.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.9% | 14.8% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.32 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.75 | 1.90 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
58.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 104 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 75.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 61 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 58.1%CMS range 49.9–67.7 | 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 | 9.8%CMS range 6.7–14.3 | 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 | 75.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 67.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 63.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care 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 | 97.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.4% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.1%CMS range 4.3–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.68 | 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 84 beds and averages 70.8 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.06 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.30 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.44 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.27 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.50 to 0.79 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% is below the national median of 45%.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-11-22 · 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 ELOPEMENT Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure supervision for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for accidents. This failure resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) when R1 eloped from the facility and was not discovered missing for two hours, despite being on hourly checks. The IJ began on 11/7/23, when R1 eloped from the facility and was out of the facility for four hours and found by law enforcement approximately 2.4 miles away from the facility. The facility administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ at 5:30 p.m. on 11/22/23. The facility implemented corrective action by 11/9/23, prior to the start of the survey and was issued as past non-compliance. R1's admission Minimum Data Baseline (MDS) dated [DATE], identified slightly impaired cognition, sometimes preferred social isolation, and behavioral symptoms not directed towards others such as pacing and yelling one of three days during the look back period. R1 also hallucinated (perceptual experiences in…
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 · D2025-12-03 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to consistently follow provider's orders for one of five residents (R1) investigated for unnecessary medication. Findings Include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses which included: heart failure, respiratory failure, anxiety and depression. R1's MDS identified R1 received diuretics (medication to help remove excess fluids). R1's care plan revised 12/3/25, identified R1 was at risk for cardiac complications related to history of respiratory failure and diagnoses of congestive heart failure (CHF), atrial fibrillation (A-Fib, irregular heart and often rapid heart rhythm) and hypertension (HTN, high blood pressure). Approaches identified R1 sometimes refused to have my weight obtained, monitor for signs and symptoms and monitor vital sign as per protocol or as ordered. R1's Physician Order Report signed 11/28/25, included the following:-Daily Weights for heart failure, start date…
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 · Dcited before2025-07-11 · 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 Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene was performed during personal cares for 1 of 1 residents (R3) reviewed for hand hygiene. Finding include: R3's care plan dated 6/3/25, identified he had an activities of daily living (ADLS) deficit related to impaired cognition, impaired mobility, and incontinence. Staff were directed to offer and assist with toilet upon rising, before and after meals, check on him every two hours at night and assist to toilet on 1:00 a.m. rounds. Stay with resident while in bathroom, do not leave alone. Transfer with assist of one and walker. He required assist of one for personal hygiene and toileting. History of urinary tract infection. R3's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R3 had severe impaired cognition and no behaviors. R3 required partial/moderate assistance chair/bed to chair transfer and substantial/maximal assistance with personal hygiene, shower/bathe, upper and lower body dressing,…
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 · F2024-10-23 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain the water and ice machines in a sanitary manner to prevent potential contamination for 69 residents who currently received water and ice from the ice machines. In addition, the facility failed to maintain the coffee machine on the Meadow [NAME] unit in a sanitary manner to prevent potential contamination for the residents who currently used the coffee machine. Findings include: On 10/21/24 at 11:49 a.m., an initial tour was conducted on all units and the following concerns were identified: -The water and ice machine located outside the main dining room on the Meadow [NAME] unit was observed to have an encrusted hard white flaky substance build up under the ice and water dispenser. The tip of the ice dispenser had an encrusted hard white flaky substance around the inside and the outside of the ice dispenser. The grate inside of the tray of the ice machine had an encrusted hard white flaky substance build up on top of the grate…
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 · D2024-10-23 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives for emergency care and treatment were accurately reflected in all areas of the resident's medical record to ensure residents wishes would be implemented correctly in an emergency for 3 of 25 residents (R10, R60, R68) reviewed for advanced directives. Findings Include: R10 R10's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R10 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses which included: heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and respiratory failure. Review of R10's electronic medical record (EMR) identified the following: -R10's dashboard Profile (banner viewed on computer screen) identified Advance Directive: do not resuscitate (DNR). -R10's Physician Order Report identified Advance Directive: Full Code, order date [DATE]. -R10's scanned in Provider Orders For Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) signed [DATE], identified Attempt Resuscitation/Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Review of R10's paper chart identified 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 · D2024-10-23 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to appropriately implement identified pressure relieving interventions to promote healing for 1 of 3 resident (R1) reviewed with current, recurring, stage three (3) pressure ulcer on R1's left heel. Stage 3 pressure ulcer; full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining or tunneling. Slough; non-viable yellow, tan, gray, green or brown tissue; usually moist, can be soft, stringy and mucinous in texture. Slough may be adherent to the base of the wound or present in clumps throughout the wound bed. Findings include: R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had moderate cognitive impairment and had diagnoses which included aphasia (a disorder that could affect how a person communicated. It may impact speech, as well as the way a person may write and understand both spoken…
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 · Dcited before2024-10-23 · 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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to identify the root cause of falls, implement appropriate interventions and follow care planned interventions for 2 of 3 residents (R 29, R127) who had multiple falls in the facility. Findings include: R29 R29's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R29 had diagnoses that included hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, and dementia. Indicated R29 had mildly impaired cognition. Indicated R29 required maximal assistance with toileting, moderate assistance with dressing and hygiene, and assistance with transfers. R29 utilized a walker and a wheelchair. Identified R29 had fallen since admission with injury. R29's significant change Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 2/29/24, identified R29 had delusional disorder, alcohol abuse, and a history of falling. Indicated R29 was at risk for falls due to her impaired mobility, cognition, psychotropic medication use, and incontinence. Resident required one assist with transfers.…
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 · D2023-12-13 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 residents were assessed for the ability to self administer medications for 2 of 7 residents (R21, R46) reviewed for medication administration. Findings include: R21 R21's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 10/23, identified R21 was independent with cognitive skills for daily decision making and had diagnoses which included: hypertension (high blood pressure), peripheral vascular disease (narrowing of blood vessels other than the heart), thyroid disorder (functioning of the thyroid gland) and depression. Indicated R21 required supervision to partial assistance with dressing and bathing. R21's care plan dated 12/12/23, identified R21 was unable to self-administer medications. R21's Physician Order Report dated 11/6/23, included: -Tylenol 325 milligram (mg) take two tablets three times a day. -Cetirizine 5 mg daily. -Vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 unit) take two tablets daily. -Levothyroxine 137 micrograms (mcg) daily. -Furosemide 40 mg…
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 · D2023-12-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide assistance with personal hygiene for 1 of 3 residents( R14) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL)'s. Findings include: R14's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R14 had moderate cognitive impairment and had diagnosis which included cerebral Palsy, arthritis, and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). Identified R14 required moderate assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene. R14's current care plan last revised 10/17/23, indicated R14 had deficits with ADL's related to impaired cognition. Indicated staff were to assist R14 with shaving as needed. R14's comprehensive Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 11/4/23, identified R14 required moderate assistance with ADL's. During an observation on 12/11/23 at 12:38 p.m , R14 was lying in bed and had several red one inch long facial hairs present on his cheeks, chin and above his…
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 · Dcited before2023-12-13 · 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 Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to implement hand hygiene for 3 of 7 residents (R46, R48, and R16) observed during medication administration. Findings include: R46's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R46 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included: cancer, renal insufficiency, dementia, and anxiety. Identified R46 required substantial/maximal assistance with dressing, personal hygiene and showering/bathing. R48's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified R48 had moderate cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included: hip and knee replacement, hypertension (high blood pressure), Alzheimer's dementia and depression. Identified R48 required substantial/maximal assistance with dressing, personal hygiene and showering/bathing. R16's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R16 was cognitively intact and diagnoses which included: heart failure, diabetes, hypertension. Identified R16 was independent with personal hygiene,…
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 · D2023-12-13 · 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 resident (R51, R56) was offered or received pneumococcal vaccinations in accordance with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: Review of the current CDC recommendations dated 3/15/2023, revealed older adults who received Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) at any age and Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) before age [AGE] years, the CDC recommended they receive one dose of PCV20 or PPSV23. Review of R51's facesheet identified R51, age [AGE] was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R51's Minnesota Immunization Information Connection (MIIC) undated, identified R51 had received the PPSV23 on 10/24/2006. R51's medical record lacked documentation R51 had been offered or received the PCV20 vaccine or another dose of the PPSV23. Review of R56's facesheet identified R56, age [AGE] was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R56's MIIC undated, identified…
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
$7,446 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $7,446 — penalty dated 2023-11-22
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 ESSENTIA HEALTH — 6 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.3★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESSENTIA HEALTH | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/29/2025 |
| ADAMS, MARC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2026 |
| CHRISTENSEN, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| GUPTA, PARUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| HEILMAN, TIM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| KREJCI, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2026 |
| LEWANDOWSKI, LAURIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| MERTZ, TAYLOR | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/17/2022 |
| SMITH, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/17/2022 |
| ARVIN, DOUGLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/18/2023 |
| BOREN, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/29/2025 |
| GEFROH ELLISON, STEFANIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/12/2024 |
| HURLEY, ALAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/18/2023 |
| PLADSON, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SAINT GEORGES, ANDERSON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| WATTERS, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| INNOVIS HEALTH LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| BRINKMAN, CHRISTY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/20/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
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 245212. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-03, 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.