Fair Meadow Nursing Home
300 Garfield Avenue Southeast, Fertile, MN 56540 · Non profit - Other · 42 certified beds · (218) 945-6194 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)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 20.4% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 4.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.4% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.5% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.1% | 4.1% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 2.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.5% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.4% | 20.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.0% | 12.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.0% | 5.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.1% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.2% | 17.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 7.9% | 1.9% | 1.4% | 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.
40.0% 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 26 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.11 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 7% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% 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 | 40.0%CMS range 27.7–55.0 | 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 | 10.4%CMS range 6.6–16.3 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 42 beds and averages 39.2 residents a day — about 93% 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 5.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.58 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 4.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.70 on weekdays — 28% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · 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 comprehensively assess for ability or safety and then care plan the self-administration of medication for 1 of 1 resident (R36) observed to have medication prepared by staff and then left with him to take on his own. Findings include: R36's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R36 had intact cognition. Diagnoses included disorder of the circulatory system, aneurysm of iliac artery and lower extremity and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). R36's care plan with last review date 9/3/25, identified R36 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A focus for altered respiratory status was identified with difficult breathing at times. Interventions included to administer medications and puffers as ordered. However, the care plan lacked any evidence R36 had been assessed or approved to administer nebulized medications independently. On 9/9/25, at 3:33 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A prepared R36'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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 defined perimeter mattress (DPM) was not used in a manner to restrain residents while in bed for 1 of 3 residents (R14) reviewed for restraints.Findings include:R14's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R14 had a severe cognitive impairment, diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, epilepsy, and vascular dementia and identified R14 used an other restraint while in bed daily.R14's Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 1/31/25, identified R14 had impaired cognitive function/impaired thought processes related to dementia. R14's cognitive assessment indicated severe impairment. R14 was able to make her needs known and was understood and understood others.R124's Behavioral Symptoms CAA dated 1/31/25, identified R14 had a potential to demonstrate behaviors related to vascular dementia, bipolar disorders, a history of depression with psychosis, and a generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviors…
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 before2025-09-10 · 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 ensure interventions for safe transfers were implemented for 1 of 5 residents (R23) observed during staff assisted transfers. Findings include:R23's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderate cognitive impairment. R23 required maximal assistance with transfers and ambulation. Diagnoses included depression, hypertension, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, and low back pain. R23's care plan with review date 8/20/25, identified R23 had a self-care performance deficit and a goal was listed to maintain her current level of function in all activities of daily living (ADLs) and mobility. Interventions included to transfer with maximal assist of one and a full wheeled walker with all transfers and to ambulate with moderate assist of one with FWW, gait belt and wheelchair to follow in the hallways. On 9/9/25, at 2:30 p.m. R23 was observed seated in her wheelchair in a common area near the nurse's station.…
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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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 document review, the facility failed to ensure a physician order for indwelling urinary catheter for 1 of 1 residents (R21) reviewed for urinary catheter. Findings include:R21's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R21 had a moderate cognitive impairment and diagnoses that included obstructive and reflux uropathy (a blockage in the urinary tract making it difficult to urinate), dementia, and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (an enlarged prostate). R21 used an indwelling urinary catheter.R21's physician order dated 6/8/22, directed to change foley catheter every 90 days. However, the physician order failed to identify type or size of urinary catheter.R21's care plan revised 12/27/23, identified R21 used an indwelling urinary catheter for obstructive uropathy and BPH. R21 required staff assistance with catheter care and emptying of the urinary bag. R21 used a 16 French (fr) urinary catheter with a 10 milliliter (ml) balloon.During an observation…
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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0712 — isolatedEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
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 long term residents received routine physician visits consistently every 60 days as required for 1 of 5 residents (R2) reviewed for unnecessary medications.Findings include:R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R2 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses that included atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), major depressive disorder, morbid obesity and lymphedema (tissue swelling).R2's medical record identified R2 was evaluated by a medical provider on 8/13/24, 11/19/24, 1/14/25, 2/26/25, 4/15/25, 6/11/25 and 8/29/25.During an interview on 9/10/25 at 1:44 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-D stated she was responsible to ensure residents were evaluated by a medical provider every 60 days. R2 was not seen timely and LPN-D stated she did not have an explanation why. LPN-D stated she keeps a handwritten schedule every month with the provider schedules, and which residents needed evaluation. However, LPN-D disposed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 medications were administered in accordance with physician orders which resulted in a medication error rate 9.09% (percent) for 1 of 7 residents (R11) observed to receive mediations during the survey.Findings include:R11's Order Summary Report, dated 8/28/25, identified R11's current physician-ordered medications and treatments. This included an order for potassium chloride extended release 10 milliequivalent (meq) by mouth two times per day, and vitamin D3 25 micrograms (mcg) give two tablets by mouth in the morning, both with start dates 8/26/25. On 9/10/25, at 9:23 a.m. registered nurse (RN)-B prepared R11's medications at a mobile medication cart in the hallway by the nurses' station. RN-B reviewed R11's electronic Medication Administration Record (MAR) which outlined the same order for potassium and vitamin D3 as listed on R11's Order Summary Report (dated 8/26/25). However, RN-B removed an opened bottle of potassium chloride 10 meq tablets and placed two tablets into the medication cup with…
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 before2025-09-10 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to perform timely tracking and trending of potential infectious symptoms to prevent the spread of transmissible organisms in a timely and ongoing manner; including a failure to implement timely transmission-based precautions (TBP) and testing for respiratory illness according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for 3 of 3 residents (R10, R21, R39) who were displaying COVID-19 symptoms.Findings include:The facility NON-COVID Illness tracker dated August 2025, identified the following: unit, resident name, room number, infection type, body of infection, diagnostics, treatment, transmission-based precautions and illness resolution. The tracker also identified the following: On 8/2/25, R39 exhibited a runny nose, cough, and slight sore throat. R39's rapid antigen COVID-19 test was negative and R39 with provided comfort for his symptoms. However, the tracker failed to identify if R39 had a confirmatory negative rapid antigen test and/or was placed into…
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 · D2024-10-21 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of neglect of care for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for safety during staff assisted transfers with a mechanical stand device. Findings include: R1's admission Record identified an admission date of 1/17/22. Diagnosis included multiple fractures of pelvis, osteoarthritis in left hip and disorder of bone density. R1's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified intact cognition. The MDS indicated R1 had lower extremity impairment on both sides and was dependent on staff for transfers. Facility incident report dated 10/5/24, indicated staff nurse responded to a call and found R1 on the bathroom floor with legs stretched forward and her back leaning against staff member's leg. When asked the nursing assistant (NA) stated she had been transferring R1 to the toilet when R1 slipped out of the harness strap and sat on the floor. NA- also stated R1 hit her head during the fall. R1 verbalized having…
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 · E2024-08-27 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop 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 provide education on immunizations per Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance for 3 of 5 residents (R15, R22, R24) reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: R15's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified they were [AGE] years old with a diagnosis of a history of COVID-19. R15's immunization record dated 8/27/24, identified pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) was given on 7/18/05, and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) on 4/6/16. R15's medical record did not include evidence R15 or R15's representative received education regarding pneumococcal vaccine booster and there was no indication R15 was offered the pneumococcal vaccine per CDC guidance. R22's significant change MDS dated [DATE], identified they were [AGE] years old with diagnosis of chronic pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs). R22's immunization record dated 8/27/24, identified pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) was given on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-27 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive reassessment was completed to ensure seat belt use was still warrented for identified medical symptoms; and failed to release the seatbelt according to care planned interventions for 1 of 1 residents (R9) reviewed for restraints. Findings include: R9's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R9 had a severe cognitive impairment, had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, and psychotic disorder with delusions. R9 used a chair that prevented rising every day, and did not identify a trunk restraint. R9 used antipsychotic and antianxiety medications. R9's care plan revised 6/19/22, identified R9 required use of physical restraints: seat belt in a tilt-in-place wheelchair for positioning related to Alzheimer's dementia and R9 leaned forward in her wheelchair. Fall at home prior to admit with Fracture. R9 was continually reaching to her feet or leaning over in wheelchair attempting…
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 before2024-08-27 · 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 record review the facility failed to comprehensively assess and develop interventions for safety while using a golf cart off campus for 1 of 1 (R23) resident reviewed for safe use of a motorized golf cart. Findings include: R23's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R23 had moderate cognition and was independent or needed supervision with activities of daily living (ADL). R23 had upper extremity impairment on one side and no lower extremity impairment. R23's diagnoses included Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia (mild to severe uncontrolled muscle movements). R23's progress notes dated 2/26/24 through 8/27/24, identified multiple occasions of R23 independently leaving the facility on his golf cart and driving to appointments, town, the store, and other activities. The notes identified the resident kept his cell phone on his person, however, the notes failed to identify if R23 was safe while driving the golf cart. R23's medical record lacked an assessment…
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 before2024-08-27 · 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 use personal protective equipment and follow hand hygeine guidelines for a resident known to have a multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO) for 1 of 1 residents (R5) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). Findings include: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Transmission-Based Precautions dated 4/3/24, identified Transmission-Based Precautions were the second tier of basic infection control and were used in addition to Standard Precautions for residents who may be infected or colonized with certain infectious agents for which additional precautions were needed to prevent infection transmission. Recommendations detailed the use of contact precautions for residents with known or suspected infections that represented an increased risk for contact transmission; wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that may involve contact with the patient or the patient's environment; and donning personal protective equipment…
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 · D2023-06-14 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 implement antibiotic stewardship for 1 of 3 residents (R31) reviewed for appropriate use of antibiotics. Findings include: R31's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified no cognitive impairment. A diagnosis of chronic kidney disease stage 4 was identified. R31's progress notes from 5/3/23 to 5/16/23 identified the following: - 5/3/21, R31 complained of burning with urination. Medical doctor (MD) was notified. - 5/4/23, received orders for a urinary analysis (UA) lab test to be done - 5/5/23, UA lab was collected and sent for analysis and culture. Will await results and update MD - 5/6/23, Order received from MD for Fosfomycin tromethamine (a medication for urinary tract infections (UTI). The medication did not arrive on Friday from the pharmacy, and they would follow up with the pharmacy on Monday. There were no other progress notes regarding R31's UTI or ordered medications. The facility's antibiotic stewardship tracking from May…
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.
- No harm found · B2025-09-10 · tag F0711 — patternEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
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 a complete medical record was maintained to include the physician progress notes during routine visits for 4 of 14 residents (R2, R10, R32, R39) reviewed in the sample .Findings include:R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R2 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses that included atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), major depressive disorder, morbid obesity and lymphedema (tissue swelling).R2's medical record identified an Order Summary Report signed by R2's physician and dated 9/3/24. However, R2's medical record failed to identify a physician progress note dated 9/3/24.A facility list was provided and identified the following residents had missing signed visit notes.R10's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified R10 had a moderate cognitive impairment and diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and morbid obesity.R10's medical record failed to identify a physician progress note dated 6/11/25.R32'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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VILLAGE OF FERTILE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/1991 |
| LARSON, SANDRA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/06/2025 |
| WHITE, CHERYL | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/06/2025 |
| LIDEN, LISA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 06/21/2023 |
| BOSMAN, AMANDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/12/2022 |
| KIEFERT, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/11/2021 |
| MASSMANN, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/08/2020 |
| TODAHL, EILEEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/10/2024 |
| WILKENS, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
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 245545. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-10, 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.