No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Guardian Angels Care Center

400 Evans Avenue, Elk River, MN 55330 · Non profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (763) 635-5475 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0610) — cited Mar 20243 immediate-jeopardy citations1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$98,353 in federal fines1 Medicare payment denial
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • 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
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $98,353 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-24)
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
290 Main St NW · (855) 324-7843 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
290 Main St Nw Ste 110 · (763) 241-5890 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
582 Dodge Ave NW · (763) 267-7479 · Call to confirm hours
Park
235 2nd St NW · (763) 635-1150 · Typically dawn to dusk

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 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 2 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 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.

Overall rating2★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased11.8%18.2%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.0%4.1%5.4%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.9%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.7%2.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.6%4.1%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.9%4.0%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened23.7%20.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication5.2%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.8%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.2%5.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control35.2%24.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.8%17.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.9%1.9%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.1%82.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.1%23.5%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.7%14.8%12.0%worse

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

64.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 342 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

64.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
27.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.46U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.24hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 27.4% 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 135 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF64.1%CMS range 57.4–68.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.8%CMS range 7.3–12.910.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge27.4%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge31.1%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge30.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting96.8%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot 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 stay0.6%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.6%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.2%CMS range 3.3–8.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.801.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.49
RN hours/ resident / day
0.59
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.72
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.81
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.90
RN hoursweekends
51.0%
Total nursing turnover
51.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 101.1 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 19 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 4.81 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.49 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.01 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.73 to 0.90 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-12-10)
7
at the previous standard inspection (2025-01-24)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

18 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · L2025-01-24 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Kitchen On 1/21/25, at 9:32 a.m., during a brief initial tour with the interim culinary director (CD)-A and the certified dietary manager (CDM), an observation was made of completion of the dishwashing process. At that time, the temperatures for the morning cycle temperature check had not been logged. Dietary aide (DA)-B stated the wash temp was 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the rinse temp was one hundred and eighty five-ish. DA-B stated the temperatures were to be 160 for wash, and 180 for the rinse cycle. Although able to state the desired temperatures for the wash and rinse cycle, DA-B stated she was unaware the temperatures were to be up to the desired temperatures before starting the dishwashing process and was unaware there were further interventions indicated if the machines did not reach the desired temperatures. CDM, who was present during the observation and interview, stated it appeared that staff were unaware of the need to run two or more racks through to bring the temperatures up to the desired…

    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
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-07-17 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolated
    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

    Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents with food allergies received the appropriate meal tray for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for food allergies. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) when R1 ingested an allergen, and was hospitalized in an intensive care unit (ICU). The provider had already implemented corrective action prior to the investigation, so the deficiency is issued as past non-compliance. The IJ began on 7/10/24, at 5:04 p.m., when R1 was served and consumed food she was known to be allergic to. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were informed of the IJ on 7/17/24 at 4:05 p.m. The facility implemented corrective action on 7/11/24, prior to the start of the survey and was therefore Past Non-compliance. Findings include: R1's Face Sheet indicated she was admitted to the facility at 2:00 p.m. on 7/10/24. R1's care plan dated 7/10/24 indicated she had an allergy to shellfish. R1's meal tray ticket dated 7/10/24 indicated she had an allergy to shellfish. On 7/10/24, at 5:04 p.m., R1 was served a dinner tray by…

    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 · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-05-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 provide care planned supervision to prevent falls for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for accidents. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation for R1 when she sustained a right femur (leg) fracture during a fall that required surgical intervention while attempting to self-transfer unsupervised in the bathroom. The immediate jeopardy began on 5/6/24, when nurse aid (NA) assisted R1 to the bathroom, left her on the toilet, and exited the bathroom. While R1 was in the bathroom alone, she stood up and fell to her right side which resulted in a two-inch laceration to left forearm, two skin tears, two centimeters (cm), on right knee, and two skin tears above right knee. R1 rated right hip/leg pain at 8/10 (0-to-10 Pain Scale, this scale uses numbers from 0 to 10. A score of 0 means no pain, while 10 represents the worst pain a person has ever experienced) and unable to move right leg. R1 was transferred to the hospital and was…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-04-11 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor 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 were accurately documented on the resident's electronic health record (EHR) banner, physician orders and Physician's Orders for Life Saving Treatment (POLST) which affected 2 of 32 residents (R24 and R79) reviewed for advance directives. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R24 who would have been denied cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) contrary to their wishes, in the absence of a pulse or respirations and for R79 who would have received CPR contrary to their wishes in the absence of a pulse or respirations. The administrator was notified of the IJ on [DATE] at 2:33 p.m. The IJ was removed on [DATE] at 8:00 p.m., when the facility implemented their removal plan, but non-compliance remained at the lower scope and severity level of D, isolated with no actual harm but potential to cause more than minimal harm. Findings include: R24's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified severe cognitive…

    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 · D2026-03-19 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    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 complete a comprehensive bowel and bladder assessment and develop an individualized incontinence care plan with goals and interventions to maintain or improve continence status for 1 of 3 (R6) reviewed for urinary incontinence.Findings include:R6's diagnoses list dated 3/18/26 included surgical aftercare for right hip fracture, type 2 diabetes, repeated falls and dementia.R6's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated R6 had moderate cognitive impairment. R6 was frequently incontinent of bladder and needed maximum assistance from staff for transfers and toileting hygiene. The urinary incontinence care area assessment indicated urinary incontinence would be addressed in the care plan with the overall objectives to include improvement and avoid complications.R6's bladder and bowel incontinence assessment dated [DATE] identified R6 did not have an indwelling catheter and did not have a urostomy. The following sections were 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-09 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor 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 provide a dignified living existence for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2, and R3) reviewed for call lights. Staff responded timely to the residents when the residents pressed their all lights for assistance; however, the staff would turn off the call light not providing services. This practice resulted in R1 and R2 soiling themselves and R3, a non-weight bearing resident attempted to transfer herself to the bathroom.Findings include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R1 had a Brief Inventory of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. R1 required substantial assistance with toileting hygiene, lower body dressing, personal hygiene, rolling from side to side in bed, transferring from a sitting to lying position and transferring from bed to chair. R1 was frequently incontinent of urine and stool and was not on a toileting program. R1's diagnoses included Type 2 Diabetes, cellulitis (a bacterial…

    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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    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 follow physician orders and ensure provider was notified of resident refusals for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) orders for 1 of 1 residents (R2) reviewed respiratory care. Findings include: R2's admission Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R2 had diagnoses of pulmonary fibrosis (condition where the lungs become scarred and thickened, making it difficult to breathe), acute and chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obstructive sleep apnea (sleep disorder where breathing repeatedly pauses or slows down during sleep due to a blockage of the upper airway). Further, MDS revealed R2 had exhibited behavior related to rejection of care. R2's medication administration record (MAR) and treatment administration record (TAR) dated April 2025, revealed R2 had physician order's directing staff to record hours R2 kept his CPAP (a machine that uses mild alit pressure to keep breathing airways open while you…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-01-24 · 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 document review, the facility failed to consistently track and monitor dishwasher temperatures for both the wash and rinse cycles, and take timely action to correct the temperatures, for 1 of 1 dishwashers observed. This had the potential to affect all 108 current residents, as well as staff, who ate food served from dishes and tableware that were cleaned in the dishwasher. Findings include: On 1/21/25, at 9:32 a.m., during a brief initial tour with the interim culinary director (CD)-A and the certified dietary manager (CDM) an observation was made of completion of the dishwashing process. At that time, the temperatures for the morning cycle temperature check had not been logged. Dietary aide (DA)-B stated the wash temp was 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the rinse temp was one hundred and eighty five-ish. DA-B stated the temperatures were to be 160 for wash, and 180 for the rinse cycle. Although able to state the desired temperatures for the wash and rinse cycle, DA-B stated she was unaware the temperatures were to be up to the desired temperatures…

    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 · E2025-01-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
    Provide 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

    Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL's-dressing, grooming, bathing, eating, and grooming) for 4 of 4 residents, ( R57, R46, R16, R14) who were observed for assistance with eating. Findings include: R57: R57's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment of 12/15/24 identified that R57 was rarely/never understood and had severe cognitive impairment. R57's medical diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease/Dementia, anxiety disorder, metabolic encephalopathy (change in how your brain works due to an underlying condition), seizure disorder (a sudden change in behavior, movement or consciousness due to abnormal electrical activity in the brain)/epilepsy (a group of non-communicable neurological disorders characterized by recurrent seizures), malnutrition (imbalance between the nutrients your body needs to function and the nutrients it gets), dehydration (a lack of total body water that disrupts metabolic processes ( set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms), hyperosmolality ( a condition 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-01-24 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    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 food was held at a steady temperature of greater than 140 degrees Fahrenheit for palatability, for 4 of 4 residents, ( R57, R46, R16, R14) observed during the dining process. Findings include: R57: R57's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment of 12/15/24 identified that R57 was rarely/never understood and had severe cognitive impairment. R57's medical diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease/Dementia, anxiety disorder, metabolic encephalopathy (change in how your brain works due to an underlying condition), seizure disorder (a sudden change in behavior, movement or consciousness due to abnormal electrical activity in the brain)/epilepsy (a group of non-communicable neurological disorders characterized by recurrent seizures), malnutrition (imbalance between the nutrients your body needs to function and the nutrients it gets), dehydration (a lack of total body water that disrupts metabolic processes ( set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms), hyperosmolality ( a condition 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-24 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor 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

    Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to provide assist with personal grooming for 1 of 1 residents, (R2), reviewed for personal appearance. Findings include: R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment of 11/16/24, identified R2 had brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 12. Although classified as moderate cognitive impairment, a score of 13 indicates intact cognition. A listing of R2's medical diagnoses included progressive neurological conditions, cerebral palsy (a group of conditions that affect movement and posture), dementia, and multiple sclerosis (MS-a disease that causes breakdown of the protective covering of nerves which can cause numbness, weakness, trouble walking, vision changes and other symptoms). The MDS indicated R2 had functional limitation of both upper extremities and was fully dependent of staff for all aspects of personal hygiene, including combing her hair, shaving, washing and drying face and hands. A review of R2's care plan, most recently revised on 6/3/24, indicated R2 had an ADL (activities of daily…

    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 · D2025-01-24 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 the completed quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded to reflect hospice services for 1 of 1 resident (R15) reviewed for MDS' accuracy. Findings include: The CMS Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/2023, identified each section of the MDS along with various instructions how to code and/or complete them. The section labeled, Section O: Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, listed directions to record any special treatments or programs the resident received during the specified time period (i.e., assessment reference date; ARD). This included, . Hospice Care, and outlined, Code residents identified as being in a hospice program . where any array of services is provided for the palliation and management of terminal illness . R15's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified diagnoses included progressive neurological conditions, neurogenic bladder, dementia, Parkinson's…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 ensure medications were administered per physician's order for 1 of 1 resident (R21) reviewed for bowel management. Findings include: R21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R21 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s except upper body dressing, eating and oral hygiene. R21's diagnoses included neuromyelitis optica, hypertension, multi-drug-resistant organism (MDRO), paraplegia, malnutrition, cutaneous abscess of buttock and osteomyelitis. During review of R21's electronic medication record (EMR), R21 had an order for senna-docusate sodium oral tablet 8.6-50 mg (milligram) one tablet twice daily to prevent constipation, oxycodone 5 mg one tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for pain, and senna-docusate sodium oral tablet 8.6-50 mg one table by mouth as needed for constipation twice daily - take one or two tablets. R21's bowel record indicated R21's last bowel movement was…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    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 the call light was accessible for 1 of 4 residents (R4) reviewed for accommodation of needs. Findings include: R4's quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], had diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and was cognitively intact. R4 was noted to have lower extremity impairment on both sides. R4's care plan dated 8/10/23, indicated R4 had a mobility deficit due to adult failure to thrive, was non-ambulatory, and was dependent on staff for wheelchair mobility. On 9/11/24 at 4:11 p.m., upon entering R4's room, R4 stated I don't have my call light. R4 was observed sitting in her standard wheelchair next to her bed, facing the window and her back was to the door. R4's call light was observed on the bottom right-hand corner of her bed next to the wall. R4's bedside table was to the right of her in between her and the bed. R4 stated she was unable to self-propel in her wheelchair and depended on staff to assist with mobility. R4 stated…

    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 · D2024-04-11 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    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 assess residents for the ability to self administer nebulizer treatments after nurse set up for 1 of 1 residents (R270) observed self administrating a nebulizer treatment. Findings include: R270's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) date 4/9/24, indicated R270 was cognitively intact. R270's self-administration of medication evaluation dated 4/8/24, indicated R270 did not self-administer medications which included nebulizer medications after nurse set up. R270's order summary report dated 4/11/24, directed staff to administer albuterol sulfate (medication to open airways, and treat air flow blockage) nebulization solution 2.5 milligrams(mg)/3 milliliters (ML) 1 vial via nebulizer four times daily. However R270's orders failed to include a provider order to self-administer albuterol sulfate. When interviewed 4/8/24 at 1:55 p.m. R270 stated staff did not observe him while Albuterol nebulizer was administered. On 4/11/24, at 9:35 a.m. observed R270 sitting in chair in room self-administering nebulizer, resident…

    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 · D2024-04-11 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    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 implement and maintain recommended restorative programming for 1 of 1 residents (R71) who were reviewed for treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion (ROM). Findings include: R71's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderately impaired cognition with a diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side and contracture (a shortening and hardening of muscles and rigidity in joints) of the left hand. R71's cognition was moderately impaired. R71's occupational therapy (OT) Discharge summary dated [DATE], identified a prognosis to maintain current level of function as excellent with consistent staff support and the recommendation of a range of motion program to decrease risk of increased tightness. R71's Change in Functional Status/Nursing Rehabilitation Program form dated 11/11/22, identified the therapy recommendation to…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure post-dialysis assessment and monitoring was completed for 1 of 1 residents (R40) reviewed for dialysis. Findings include: R48's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R48 had intact cognition and required partial/limited assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R48's diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, orthostatic hypotension, end stage renal disease, arthritis, CVA/TIA (stroke) and malnutrition. R48 received dialysis treatment that was done outside of the facility. R48's care plan dated 2/20/24, indicated R48 required hemodialysis related to end-stage renal disease and had a shunt in their left arm for vascular access. R48's care plan lacked pre- and post-dialysis instructions for monitoring of access site for shunt bruit and thrill (when the nurses listens and feels the dialysis access site to ensure blood flow). R48's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure resident protection pending an investigation into an allegation of abuse. Findings include: R1's admission Record indicted he admitted to the facility on [DATE] and identified diagnosis that included anxiety. R1's care plan dated 3/1/24, indicated he was alert to person, place and time and identified intact cognition. A report to the state agency (SA) dated 3/12/24, indicated R1 alleged he was physically abused by staff on 3/9/24. The report indicated the alleged abuse caused R1 great fear and anxiety and indicated he was afraid to leave his room. A second report to the SA dated 3/12/24, indicated R1 sent an e-mail to registered nurse RN-A which stated there had been conduct issues with nursing staff and requested NA-A and RN-B not provide care for him. R1 reported to RN-A he had scratches on his forearm as a result of RN-B attempting to grab his phone out of his hand. R1 further reported NA-A had called him a fat ass and said all he did was…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation 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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$98,353 in federal fines across 4 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

  • $59,010 — penalty dated 2025-01-24
  • $13,627 — penalty dated 2024-07-17
  • $16,801 — penalty dated 2024-05-16
  • $8,915 — penalty dated 2024-03-14
  • Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-02-26 for 26 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 / managerTypeRoleSince
SONNTAG, ROBERTIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 03/15/2006
HEINECKE, CARLIEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/06/2024
LARSON, TRACIIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/02/2022
MCDEVITT, DEANIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 02/04/2019
LECLAIRE, JOYCEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2019
LLOYD ROSCOE, NANCYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2018
MOWRY, TRISHAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
NAGORSKI, JEFFIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2014
NICHOLS, JOANIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2016
RAITZ, JULIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2017
ROBINSON, CHRISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2017
SCHULER, LYNNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2018
SCHULTZ, ARLOIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2015
VETSCH, GORDYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2018
ZERWAS, NICKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/16/2020
HERRMANN, DARYLIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2018
KRIEGER, LINDAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/15/2010
GUARDIAN ANGELS HEALTH SERVICES, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/1967

CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

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.

$16.7M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-0.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$921K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 52%Medicare 16%Other / private 32%

This home reported $921K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$548per resident / day
operating cost
$16,672per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$544per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Minnesota
$10,646/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$13,870/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,573/mo
Assisted living

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 245012. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-10, 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.

What to do next