Valley View Healthcare & Rehab
510 East Cedar Street, Houston, MN 55943 · Non profit - Corporation · 40 certified beds · (507) 896-3125 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (19% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $26,685 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-29)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.4% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.6% | 4.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.4% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.0% | 2.6% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.2% | 4.1% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.0% | 4.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 28.4% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.2% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.3% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.3% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.3% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.8% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 56.2% | 82.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.7% | 23.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.3% | 14.8% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 37% 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 | 52.0%CMS range 41.9–66.6 | 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 7.6–16.1 | 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 — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 3.6–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 40 beds and averages 37.7 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 2 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 4.20 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.95 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.94 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 3.68 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.41 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.13 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 19% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-01-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment, monitor, and notify the physician for a sudden change in mental and physical status for 1 of 3 residents (R1) who had a change in condition. The deficiency was identified as past non-compliance and issued at Immediate Jeopardy. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) began on [DATE], when R1 demonstrated changes to mental status, speech, and mobility in which licensed nursing staff failed to comprehensively assess, monitor, and notify the physician. The Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on [DATE] at 5:30 p.m. The facility had implemented immediate corrective action on [DATE] to prevent recurrence, the IJ was issued at past non complinace. Findings include: R1's face sheet dated [DATE], identified R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, weakness, and falls. R1 had physical and occupational therapy. R1's comprehensive SLUMS (St.…
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 · F2025-01-29 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — widespreadMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a complete wireless call light system in which staff were provided with functioning devices in their possession. This had the potential to affect all 33 residents at the facility. Findings include: During a phone interview on 1/29/25 at 9:26 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated the facility's call light system was the worst she had ever seen. The call lights could not be heard and could not tell if they were going off unless she was in the hallway looking at the thin display bar that identified which call lights were going off. During an interview on 1/29/25 at 11:31 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-E stated the call lights show up on the scroll board that showed the room number and bed 'A' or 'B'. The board makes one high pitched beep when a call light was activated. If there was more than one call light on, the board would scroll through the ones activated in the order that they were activated. The board did not identify how long the call light was activated for. The call system was separated by wings so…
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 · D2025-01-29 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to process and implement bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) order for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for respiratory care. Findings include: R1's face sheet dated 1/31/25, identified diagnoses of congestive heart failure (a condition where the heart does not pump blood as well as it should), atherosclerotic heart disease (a condition where fatty deposits build up in the arteries of the heart), obstructive sleep apnea (condition of intermittent airflow blockage during sleep), R1's outside physician orders for admission to the facility dated 1/8/25, included a BIPAP was ordered for a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (condition of intermittent airflow blockage during sleep). R1's electronic health record for physician orders between 1/9/25 through 1/13/25, did not identify the order had for BIPAP had been transcribed into the facility record. Further treatment administration records did not identify R1 received the BIPAP therapy between the dates…
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 · E2024-03-13 · 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 appropriately vaccinate against pneumonia upon admission for 5 of 5 residents (R4, R7, R10, R16, and R20) who were reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: A CDC Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults feature, dated 3/2023, identified various tables when each (or all) of the pneumococcal vaccinations should be obtained. This identified when an adult over [AGE] years old had received the complete series (i.e., PPSV23 and PCV13; see below) then the patient and provider may choose to administer Pneumococcal Vaccine-20 (PCV20) for patients who had received Pneumococcal Vaccine-13 (PCV13) at any age and Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV23) at or after [AGE] years old. R4's 2/01/24, significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R4 was [AGE] years old. R4's MDS under Section O- Special Treatments and Programs indicated R4's pneumococcal vaccinations were up to date. R4's vaccination record identified she received PPSV23 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 before2024-03-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to appropriately assess a change of condition (COC) for 1 of 2 residents (R9) reviewed for hospitalization who had changes from his baseline health status when oxygen (O2) levels were assessed to be low. The facility failure in assessment resulted in R9 being transported to the emergency department. Findings include: R9's 12/19/23, quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R9 had diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), epilepsy (seizure disorder), malnutrition, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, quadriplegia (paralysis of the limbs), atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm) , and dysphagia (swallowing disorder). R9's cognition was intact, he was able to communicate, and he was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living. R9's current administration record identified he has a physician order started on 10/24/23, for as needed oxygen at 1 LPM (liter per minute) via NC (nasal cannula) due to decreased O2 saturations to maintain oxygen saturations greater than 90%.…
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 · F2023-05-10 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and document review, the facility failed to employ either a full time registered dietitian (RD) or a qualified dietary manager (DM) to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service since December 2022. This failure had the potential to affect all 31 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: During an interview on 05/08/23 at 9:45 a.m., the DM stated she recently completed the Serv Safe course but was not a certified dietary manager (CDM). The DM stated the facility's registered dietitian (RD) was employed on a consultant basis and usually visited the facility once per week. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 9:05 a.m., the DM stated she worked at the facility since 2011 as a part time and full time cook prior to becoming the DM during the end of 2022. The DM stated she had not previously worked as a DM. The DM explained she was not a CDM or a certified food service manager and was not currently enrolled in a CDM course. The DM explained since December 2022 when she started working as the DM the facility's consultant RD only visited the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-05-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to label, date, and cover food stored in kitchen refrigerator and freezer storage. The facility also failed to discard hot dogs that had signs of spoilage and left-over food stored in refrigeration for greater than seven days. This had the potential to affect 30 residents who consumed food prepared in the facility's kitchen. Findings include: 1. Observation during the initial kitchen inspection on 05/08/23 from 9:45 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., with the dietary manager (DM) present, revealed the following: a. Observation of food stored in a reach-in refrigerator, near the kitchen's tray line area, revealed one bowl of egg salad dated 04/28, six unlabeled and undated raw ground beef patties, one container of undated and unlabeled mozzarella cheese, five unlabeled and undated hard-boiled eggs, and two opened and undated 16-ounce plastic bags of whipped topping. b. Observation of food stored in a reach-in refrigerator, in the kitchen's food preparation area, revealed one container of left-over turkey slices dated 04/26,…
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 · F2023-05-10 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 keep the kitchen's small mixer, sheet pans, two kitchen drawers, and a shelf where food preparation equipment was stored clean. The facility also failed to maintain the kitchen's walk-in freezer in safe operating condition by failing to prevent ice buildup inside the freezer. This failure had the potential to affect 30 residents who consumed food prepared in the facility's kitchen. Findings include: 1. Observation during the initial inspection of the facility's kitchen on 05/08/23 from 9:45 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., with the dietary manager (DM) present, revealed the following: a. The kitchen's small mixer, covered and ready for use, was unclean with dried food splatters. b. Two kitchen drawers, with food preparation equipment including: scoops, metal and rubber spatulas, serving spoons, tongs and whisks stored in them, were unclean with greasy residues and food debris. c. A kitchen shelf, with food preparation pans stored on it, was unclean with a greasy residue and food debris. d. Five of five food preparation…
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 · D2023-05-10 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 resident's preferences to keep his room door shut while unoccupied was honored for 1 of 1 resident (R17) reviewed for choices. Findings include: R17's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R17 was alert and oriented and had diagnoses of schizaffective disorder and mild intellectual disabilities. R17's care plan dated dated 4/28/21, identified R17 experienced delusions and hallucinations in the past. Staff were directed to encourage R17 to spend time out of his room for meals, activities; and to spend time with others. The care plan lacked any resident preferences related to R17's room door. During an interview on 5/8/23 at 1:39 p.m., R17 stated when he was not in his room he wanted to keep his door shut. R17 told social services (SS)-A this, but staff continued to leave it open. During an observation on 5/9/23 at 9:40 a.m., R17 was not in his room and his door was open. During an observation 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 · D2023-05-10 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide soft bite sized food and encourage to alternate consumption of liquids and solids during meals as ordered for 1 of 1 (R2) resident of the sampled residents who had a diagnosis of dysphagia (difficulty with swallowing) and received a mechanically altered diet. Findings include: R2's undated Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed an admission date of 11/16/11, with medical diagnoses which included but not limited to hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the left non-dominate side, dysphagia following an unspecified cerebrovascular disease, and vascular dementia. The Face Sheet specified R2's most recent readmission to the facility was on 02/22/23. R2's facility-provided hospital After Visit Summary, dated 02/22/23, revealed, . on further swallow evaluation he was found to have some dysphagia (was provided SB6 soft and bite-sized diet, which he continued on discharge) so cannot exclude possible mild aspiration pneumonia to explain CXR (chest x-ray) findings. R2'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
$26,685 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $26,685 — penalty dated 2025-01-29
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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| EDWARDS, CONNIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 09/01/2020 |
| FORSYTH, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/25/2005 |
| GOTTFRIED, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/25/2023 |
| JOHNSTON, KENNETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/30/2014 |
| LITSCHER LEE, KRISTINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/22/2019 |
| MCPEAK, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/24/2018 |
| SOLUM, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/26/2022 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MN
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 245566. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-29, 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.