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

Courage Kenny Rehabilitation Institutes Trp

3915 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55422 · Non profit - Corporation · 56 certified beds · (612) 775-2835 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0604) — cited Apr 20261 immediate-jeopardy citation$16,355 in federal fines
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 (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • the CMS record shows $16,355 in federal fines (most recent 2026-04-13)
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit 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.

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

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2426 W Broadway Ave · (612) 302-8200 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens1.1 mi
5695 Duluth St · (763) 546-5336 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1835 Penn Ave N · (612) 200-9621 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Impark<0.1 mi
3915 Golden Valley Rd · (612) 341-8000 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
4000 Golden Valley Rd · (763) 521-4793

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 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 rating4★
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 increased3.6%18.2%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.3%4.1%5.4%typical
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 infection5.3%2.6%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms8.8%4.1%6.5%worse
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.0%4.0%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication10.5%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers24.2%5.2%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control0.0%24.5%21.2%check this — see note marked star below the table
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.0%1.9%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.5%82.7%79.4%better

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

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

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.

52.0% 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 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

52.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
69.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
2.71U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
1.23hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
1.14hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.33hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 69.2% 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 39 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 2.71 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 100% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 SNF52.0%CMS range 38.3–66.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.3%CMS range 6.0–16.410.7%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 discharge69.2%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 discharge61.5%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 discharge69.2%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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%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 worsened4.0%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 hospitalization7.2%CMS range 3.4–15.07.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.321.02Oct 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

2.78
RN hours/ resident / day
0.09
LPN hours/ resident / day
4.37
Aide hours/ resident / day
7.24
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
2.56
RN hoursweekends
38.7%
Total nursing turnover
26.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 56 beds and averages 42.2 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 14 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 7.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.37 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 6.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.41 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.86 to 2.56 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% 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 (2026-07-02)
0
at the previous standard inspection (2025-03-27)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2026-04-13 · 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 record review the facility failed to identify environmental risks for stairwell doors that had nonfunctioning alarms, disabled locks, and failed to adequately supervise 1 of 3 residents (R1) through the remote monitoring system. This resulted in immediate jeopardy for 1 of 3 residents (R1) who opened a stairwell access door, wheeled through the door, and fell down six stairs while secured by a lap belt in his wheelchair. R1 sustained a hematoma (localized collected of clotted or partially clotted blood outside causing swelling, pain, and skin discoloration) and was sent to the emergency department for evaluation. In addition, the facility failed to have a system in place for routine checks on the fire door alarm system to ensure the employee badges and the resident wander guard (an alarm placed on or near the resident's body to alarm when they attempt to leave the unit) were in working order. This had the potential to affect all residents who resided in the unit. The…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · 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 document review, the facility failed to provide respect and dignified treatment for 1 of 3 residents (R3) reviewed for dignity. R3 was given a bed alarm that R3 stated he did not consent to. The alarm limited his freedom of movement when he was in bed due to feeling startled by the loud sound of the alarm. In addition, he was anxious because he was concerned his alarm would bother residents near his room.Findings include: The facilities Consent Form for Restraints dated 2/2/26 indicated R3 signed giving consent for the medication trazodone and side rails on his bed. The bed alarm was not on the consent form. R3's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R3's BIMS score was a 14 indicating he was cognitively intact. R3 required moderate assistance for dressing and personal hygiene. He was dependent for toileting hygiene and transfers. He could roll from side to side in bed with moderate assistance. R3's pertinent diagnoses were cerebral infarction, dysphagia,…

    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 · D2026-04-13 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure 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 implement a process to assess for, determine medical symptoms, obtain an order prior to use, assess for use of the least restrictive alternative for the least amount of time and document ongoing re-evaluation of the need for restraints for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2, R3) reviewed for use of physical restraints.Findings include: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.20.1 dated October 2025 Section P: Restraints and Alarms indicated physical restraints are any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. The important consideration is the effect of the device on the resident, and not the purpose for which the device was placed on the resident. Residents who are cognitively…

    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
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan that included all the medical devices in use and develop interventions for the safe use of the devices for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2, and R3) who were reviewed for care plan development.Findings include: Upon observation and interview on 4/7/26 at 12:17 p.m. R1 was observed to have bilateral quarter side rails at the head of his bed and three-quarter length side rails at the foot of his bed. R1 was seated in his wheelchair with an alarmed seat belt around his waist on the back of his chair he had a wander guard bracelet attached to his wheelchair. R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R1 had a Brief Inventory of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 indicating he was significantly cognitively impaired. R1 required moderate assistance with dressing, sitting to standing, chair to bed transfer, toilet transfer, walking 150 feet. R1 used a wheelchair. R1 was always continent of bowel and…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolated
    Regularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
    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 conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails as a part of the regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2, and R3) reviewed for side rails. The facility did not provide any documentation of inspection or entrapment assessments.Findings include: Recommendations for Health Care Providers Using Adult portable Bed Rails dated 2/27/2023 retrieved on 4/13/26 from https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/general-hospital-devices-and-supplies/hospital-beds indicated, when evaluating the safe use of a hospital bed, component or accessory, manufacturers and caregivers should recognize that the risk for entrapment may increase if a hospital bed system is used for purposes, or used in a care https: Evaluating the dimensional limits of gaps in hospital beds may be one component of a bed safety program which includes a comprehensive plan for patient and bed assessment. Bed…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-10 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively reassess pressure ulcer interventions and develop and implement new interventions to prevent pressure injuries for 1 of 1 resident (R1) who was identified as refusing repositioning on the overnight and acquired a new pressure sore. Findings Include:Definitions of pressure ulcer types according to National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP):Unstageable Pressure Ulcer: Full-thickness skin and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because the wound bed is obscured by slough or eschar. If the slough or eschar is removed, a Stage 3 or Stage 4 pressure ulcer will be revealed.R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses of traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, neurogenic bladder (condition where nerve damage from the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral nerves leads to a loss of bladder control) and quadriplegia (paralysis that affects all of a person's limbs…

    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 before2025-05-22 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively reassess pressure ulcer interventions and develop and implement new interventions to prevent pressure injuries for 1 of 2 residents (R1) who was identified as refusing repositioning on the overnight and acquired a new pressure sore. Findings include: Definitions of pressure ulcer types according to National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP): Unstageable Pressure Ulcer: Full-thickness skin and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because the wound bed is obscured by slough or eschar. If the slough or eschar is removed, a Stage 3 or Stage 4 pressure ulcer will be revealed. Braden Pressure Ulcer Risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated a score of 16, low. (The Braden Scale is a tool used to assess a patient's risk for pressure ulcers, with lower scores indicating higher risk. Scores between 15 and 18 are considered at mild risk). R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE],…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-12-14 · 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 ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to: remove expired food from food storage areas; label and date food; assure proper hand hygiene while preparing resident meal trays; and storing resident food in an employee break room refrigerator. These practices had the potential to affect all residents, staff and visitors consuming food at the facility. Findings include: During an observation and interview with the dietary manager (DM) on 12/11/23 at 3:01 p.m., a container of Mrs. Gerry's premade coleslaw was noted to have been dated as opened on 11/2/23, and a discard date of 11/25/23. There was also noted to be pre-cooked chicken pieces in a plastic bag with no label or dates. The DM stated once a week refrigerators were checked for expired food. Expired food could cause illness. During an observation and interview on 12/12/23 at 10:49 a.m., dietary aid (DA)-A was wearing gloves while preparing resident trays. DA-A left the serving area 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-12-14 · 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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure compression socks were applied to 1 of 1 resident (R238) reviewed for quality of care. Findings include: R238 Diagnosis report printed 12/14/23, indicated diagnosis included cerebral infarction (stroke). R238 Order dated 11/29/23, directed to apply TEDS (compression socks) in AM before getting out of bed. R238 baseline care plan dated 11/29/23, and caresheet undated, identified R238 wore compression socks During interview on 12/11/23 at 6:43 p.m., R238 stated she did not have compression socks since admission on [DATE] but wore them prior to admission. R238 asked two staff about compression socks and was told they needed to be reordered. R238 stated she was worried about her left foot swelling. During observation on 12/13/23 at 7:37 a.m., R238 was observed wearing white non compression socks on both legs. During observation on 12/14/23 at 10:01 a.m., R238 was wearing fuzzy socks and canvas tennis shoes. Compression socks 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
  • No harm found · C2026-04-13 · tag F0846 — widespread
    Have policies and procedures ensuring the administrator's responsibilities for facility closure are completed successfully.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a facility closure policy and procedure had been developed. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the building.Findings include:A policy and procedure covering facility closure was requested from the facility, but facility failed to provide such documentation.Email correspondence dated 4/7/26 at 8:16 p.m. the Administrator indicated the facility did not have a policy/procedure on facility closure, as the facility had no intent to close.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2023-12-14 · tag F0732 — widespread
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    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 required nurse staffing information was updated daily. This had the potential to affect all 34 residents, staff and visitors who may wish to review this information. Findings include: During an observation on 12/12/23 at 11:16 a.m., posted staffing at the front entry to the rehab center was dated 12/11/23. During an observation on 12/13/23 at 8:09 a.m., posted staffing at the front entry was dated 12/11/23. Health unit coordinator (HUC)-E stated the charge nurse was the person responsible for updating the posted staffing. During an observation on 12/13/23 at 11:09 a.m., the posted staffing was still from 12/11/23. During an interview on 12/13/23 at 12:00 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated the expectation was for the posted staffing to be for the current date because it was a requirement. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 8:39 a.m., the administrator stated the expectation was that the posted staffing be for the current…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2023-12-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on interview and document review the facility failed to review and/or revise the infection control programs policies and procedures at least annually. This had the potential to affect all 34 residents, all staff, and all visitors at the facility. Findings include; Review of the facility's infection control policies was conducted on 12/14/23. The facility policy titled Department Plan: Infection Prevention and Control Program plan had an effective and approval date of 10/25/22, with the next review date of 8/31/25. During interview on 12/14/23 at 9:00 a.m., the infection preventionist (IP) stated the last documented review of the Infection Prevention and Control Program Plan was 10/25/22. IP stated that the facility follows the same requirements as the hospital and verified the facility does not review annually.

    Infection Control 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

$16,355 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $16,355 — penalty dated 2026-04-13

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEMOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL100%since 06/01/2013
STREET, HEIDIIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2013
ALSTAD, JENNIFERIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/10/2016
BAKER, CHANDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/20/2024
BALLARD, SHARIIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/24/2021
BORGSTROM, MARNAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/13/2025
CHURCH, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/09/2021
ESTES, MELINDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/13/2025
GILLUND, LAURAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/10/2015
HANG, MAYKAOIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/24/2021
KING, LOUISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/12/2017
KOLAR, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/13/2024
LOWE, CHALLISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/08/2022
MCGRANE, BRIANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/14/2024
NEWCOME, ROGERIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/11/2022
O'LAUGHLIN, DANIELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
RASMUSEN, VICKIIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/24/2021
RONNEBERG, AMYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/24/2021
SCHIRMERS, PATRICIAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 10/28/1985
SCHONEMAN, DEBBRAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/13/2013
SCHREIER, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/12/2014
SHANNON, LISAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
ULREICH, SHAWNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/13/2023
WELSH, TIMOTHYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 12/01/2017
WILLIAMS, BARBARAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/10/2015
WILLIAMS-BRINKLEY, RUTHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/13/2023
JOOS, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/15/2019
TALLARICO, DOMINICAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/11/2024
LINDIG, MARCIAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2015

CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 29 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

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 245519. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-02, 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