Aftenro Home

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

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.

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 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 10% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 54 beds and averages 50.7 residents a day — about 94% 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.33 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.77 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.17 to 0.57 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2026-03-19 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — widespread
  Provide 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 ensure the narcotic emergency kit was tracked to prevent potential theft and diversion of medications. This had the potential to affect all residents residing on the nursing unit.Findings include:On 3/18/26 at 1:05 p.m., a tour of the locked medication room was conducted with registered nurse (RN)-D. The medication room had one emergency kit that contained controlled substances, was locked in a cupboard and had a plastic numbered lock on it. RN-D stated the emergency kit containing narcotics was swapped out weekly by pharmacy. If the emergency kit was used they would fill out a slip identifying what was used and for which resident. RN-D stated the emergency kit containing narcotics was not part of the shift change narcotic count.The emergency kit contained the following controlled substances:hydrocodone/APAP (acetaminophen) 5/325 milligrams (mg) quantity of sixhydromorphone 2 mg quantity of twooxycodone 5 mg quantity of sixtramadol 50 mg quantity of sixmorphine oral solution 20 mg per milliliter quantity of…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2026-03-19 · tag F0801 — widespread
  Employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on interview and document review, in the absence of a full-time registered dietician the facility failed to designate a qualified person to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any resident in the facility.Findings include:During an interview on 3/16/26 at 8:22 a.m., the dietary manager (DM) stated she didn't have a certified dietary manager (CDM) certificate, and didn't think anyone here did, but the dietician was here several times a month. During an interview on 3/18/26 at 2:27 p.m., the administrator stated the DM didn't have a CDM certificate and wasn't enrolled in the program yet but had been at a previous employment. The administrator offered the DM did have a food safety manager training certificate of completion from 2/26/24.During an interview on 3/19/26 at 11:24 a.m., the registered dietician (RD) stated she was aware the RD didn't have a CDM and that she handled the quarterly reviews for residents.A policy regarding dietary management qualifications was requested but not received.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2026-03-19 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — widespread
  Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
  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 a reliable system for identifying ingredients containing food allergens, and to ensure residents were not served items they were allergic to. In addition, the facility failed to have pre-planned menus for therapeutic diet types for 2 of 2 residents (R5, R35) reviewed for nutrition and food concerns.Findings include:R5's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R5 had intact cognition, a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM), unplanned weight loss and needed set-up assistance with eating.R5's care plan dated 1/8/25, identified a focus statement related to DM and included interventions to have a dietary consult for nutritional regimen and ongoing monitoring, to discuss mealtimes, portion sizes, dietary restrictions, snacks allowed in daily nutritional plan, and compliance with nutritional regimen. Offer substitutes for foods not eaten. The care plan was updated on 1/30/26, the registered dietician (RD) added…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2026-03-19 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — widespread
  Ensure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
  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 no more than 14 hours between the dinner and breakfast meals without offering a substantial snack.Findings include:A document, Dining Room Meal Service, listed breakfast as 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m., lunch at 11:30 a.m. to 12:15 a.m., and dinner at 5 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. To ensure you receive your meal, please be in the dining room during the scheduled service time. Otherwise, a tray will be sent to your room.Food committee minutes dated 10/23/25, identified the administrator and dietary manager were in attendance. Concerns included the transition to more nutritious snack options with plans to phase out less healthy snack items. Residents mentioned staff members were witnessed helping themselves to resident snacks. Additionally, residents raised concerns about diabetic snacks and snack requests being unmet, after witnessing staff eating snacks.Food committee minutes dated November 2025, identified the dietary manager was in attendance.…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2026-03-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure potentially hazardous food (PHF) was dated when opened and held at safe temperatures when served to residents. In addition, the facility failed to ensure expired PHF was removed from circulation, that temperature logs were complete, and that medical equipment wasn't stored with resident food. These deficient practices had the potential to affect anyone consuming food and beverages at the facility.Findings include:During an observation and interview on 3/16/26 at 8:22 a.m., the walk-in cooler in the main kitchen contained an open and undated, partially full container of Prairie Farms heavy cream. The dietary manager (DM) stated she would expect milk to be dated when it was opened.During an observation on 3/17/26 at 11:57 a.m., the beverage station near the second-floor nursing station had a small refrigerator and freezer. There was an ice pack in the freezer with individual cups of ice cream. A sign on the refrigerator door indicated it was for labeled food only, no ice packs. Ice packs were in the…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure proper measures were in place for the handling of resident and facility laundry. In addition, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered an opportunity to clean their hands prior to meals and that staff properly sanitized hands during dining services. These deficient practices had the potential to impact all residents who resided at the facility.Findings include: During an interview on 3/18/26 at 2:13 p.m., housekeeper HK-A gave a tour of the laundry area. HK-A explained dirty resident and facility laundry entered the laundry area via the laundry chute and then got sorted by color and type. They had been trained to wear eye protection if they had to rinse laundry, to wear gloves when they sorted laundry, and proper times that required hand sanitizing. HK-A stated they had not been told to wear a personal protective gown when sorting laundry, but they thought staff could if they wanted to, but it wasn't required. During an interview on 3/19/26 at 9:30 a.m., HK-B stated when they sorted laundry,…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-03-19 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide timely follow up to resident suggestions from the resident council. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any resident whose requests were brought forth at resident council.Findings include:Resident council minutes 10/27/25: ongoing challenges were noted regarding wheelchair cleanliness. Aftenro will explore implementing a suggestion box to encourage resident feedback and ideas.11/24/25: kitchen issues brought up by resident council included too many carbohydrates at meals, a 4-week menu cycle was too repetitive, not many homemade meals as many things are pre-packaged, diabetics needed a more substantial snack between dinner and breakfast, residents requested administrators presence at the next meeting, discrepancies in timing of meals delivered to the floors, food not kept warm, and wrong orders.12/29/25: resident council suggested cleaning wheelchairs and walkers, the administrator and dietary manager will follow up, residents suggested they could make a list of residents and cross one off a day.…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-03-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise the care plan for skin and wound care interventions for a resident at risk for and having actual pressure ulcers for 1 of 6 (R8) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility also failed to include interventions related to high-risk medication use for 2 of 5 residents (R4, R12) reviewed for unnecessary medications. In addition, the facility to ensure care conferences were scheduled quarterly and/or for significant changes for 1 of 1 resident (R6) reviewed for care planning. Findings include: R8: R8's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified impaired cognition and diagnoses of hypertension (HTN), hemiplegia, protein-calorie malnutrition, general weakness, and reduced mobility. R8 had limited range of motion upper and lower on both sides, was dependent for all activities of daily living (ADL)s, transfers, and locomotion. R8 was at risk for, and had an actual stage two, pressure ulcer. R8 needed hearing aids and glasses. A care area…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-19 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all sections of the minimum data set (MDS) were completed for 2 of 4 residents (R5, R8) reviewed for MDS accuracy.Findings include:Section C of the MDS focuses on cognitive patterns and includes a staff assessment for mental status and signs and symptoms of delirium. It assesses the resident's ability to make decisions, orientation and ability to register and recall new information.R5's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified section C was not assessed.R5's electronic medical record (EMR) didn't contain a progress note regarding the incomplete section C.R8's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified section C was not assessed.R8's electronic medical record (EMR) didn't contain a progress note regarding the incomplete section C.During an interview on 3/19/26 at 8:35 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B looked at section C for R5 and R8 and confirmed they were not assessed. RN-B stated a note should be made in the chart as to why something wasn't assessed.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident's sensory losses and devices, including the potential for skin impairment related to devices for 1 of 3 residents (R8) reviewed for pressure ulcers. In addition the facility failed to update and incorporate significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) triggered care areas into the comprehensive care plan for 1 of 3 residents (R6) reviewed for comprehensive care planning. Findings include: R8: R8's admission minimum data set MDS dated [DATE], identified moderately impaired cognition, ability to hear with hearing aids, clear speech, the ability to make himself understood, and R8 wore corrective lenses. R8's care plan dated 4/3/25, didn't contain a focus statement for communication, hearing, vision, hearing aids, or glasses. The care plan identified R8 was at risk for skin impairment but didn't contain interventions for routine skin inspections by a licensed nurse or to provide…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

What families pay in MN