Good Samaritan Society - Howard Lake
413 13th Avenue, Howard Lake, MN 55349 · Non profit - Corporation · 32 certified beds · (320) 543-3800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (9% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 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 | 20.7% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 4.1% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.9% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 9.6% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.2% | 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 | 3.2% | 4.0% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 51.2% | 20.5% | 16.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.6% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 5.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.2% | 24.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.2% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 82.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.2% | 23.5% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.0% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
53.1% 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 41 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.0% 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 20 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% 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 | 53.1%CMS range 39.6–66.0 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 7.0–15.9 | 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 | 55.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 45.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 50.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 96.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 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 | 3.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 0.66 | 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 32 beds and averages 28.3 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 4 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 4.06 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.88 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.43 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.31 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 2.10 to 1.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 9% 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 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food and beverages were handled and served in a sanitary manner to prevent contamination for residents receiving meals in the dining room. Additionally, the facility failed to consistently monitor dishwasher temperatures for rinse cycles and take timely action to correct the process to assure temperatures were within the desired range for the rinse cycle for 1 of 1 dishwashers observed. This had the potential to affect all 28 current residents, as well as staff, who ate food served from dishes and tableware that were cleaned in the dishwasher. Further more, the facility failed to ensure proper measures were implemented with meal preparation to ensure food was handled and prepared for service in a sanitary manner to prevent contamination of food products. This had the potential to affect residents, guests, and staff receiving meals served from the kitchen.Findings include: During observation of the evening meal service on 02/10/26 at 4:35 p.m., dietary aide (DA)-A was observed delivering beverages to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented infection prevention practices by offering assistance, encouragement, or reminders for residents to sanitize their hands prior to dining. This had the potential to affect all residents eating in the dining room.Findings include:During observation of the dining room on 02/10/2026 at 4:35 p.m., residents were seated at tables where containers of Sani-Hands hand sanitizing wipes were visibly placed in the center of each table. Residents proceeded to eat their meals without staff offering assistance, reminders, or encouragement to sanitize their hands prior to eating. No staff were observed directing residents to the hand sanitizer or assisting residents who required cues or assistance due to physical or cognitive limitations. During observation of the dining room on 02/11/2026 at 4:37 p.m., residents were seated at tables where containers of Sani-Hands hand sanitizing wipes were visibly placed in the center of each table. Residents again proceeded to eat their meals without staff offering assistance,…
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 · D2026-02-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with dignity and respect during the dining experience for 1 of 1 resident (R4) reviewed for dignity. Findings include:R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified R4 had moderately impaired cognition and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). R4's diagnoses included non-traumatic brain dysfunction (impairment of brain function affecting cognition or behavior not caused by physical injury), hypertension (chronically elevated blood pressure), urinary tract infections (infection of the urinary system), hyponatremia (abnormally low serum sodium levels), non-Alzheimer's dementia (progressive cognitive decline not attributed to Alzheimer's disease), and malnutrition (insufficient nutritional intake resulting in impaired health status). During continuous observation on 2/10/26 from 4:35 p.m. through 4:54 p.m., R4 had been assisted into the dining room by staff and had been…
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 · D2026-02-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's physician was notified of change in condition and significant clinical events in accordance with provider orders for 1 of 1 resident (R20) reviewed for change in condition. Findings include: R20's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R20 had intact cognition and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). R20's diagnoses included acute on chronic combined systolic and diastolic heart failure (a condition in which the heart experienced both acute worsening and long-standing impairment of its ability to pump and fill effectively), coronary artery disease (narrowing or blockage of the coronary arteries supplying blood to the heart), heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart was unable to pump sufficient blood to meet the body's needs), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (backflow of stomach contents into the esophagus causing irritation and discomfort), hyperlipidemia (elevated…
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 · D2026-02-12 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Office of the Ombudsman for Long-Term Care was notified of a resident's transfer to the emergency room (ER) on two separate occasions for 1 of 3 residents (R4) for transfer from facility.Findings include: R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R4 had moderately impaired cognition and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). R4's diagnoses included non-traumatic brain dysfunction (impairment of brain function affecting cognition or behavior not caused by physical injury), hypertension (chronically elevated blood pressure), urinary tract infections (infection of the urinary system), hyponatremia (abnormally low serum sodium levels), non-Alzheimer's dementia (progressive cognitive decline not attributed to Alzheimer's disease), and malnutrition (insufficient nutritional intake resulting in impaired health status). Review of R4's electronic medical record (EMR) on 02/11/26, indicated R4 was transferred…
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 · D2026-02-12 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed and closed in accordance with federal requirements for 1 of 1 resident (R26) for accuracy of assessments. Findings include: R26's Medicare 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was initiated on [DATE], but was not completed or closed following the resident's transfer to the hospital. Record review indicated R26 was transferred from the facility to the hospital on [DATE]. R26 expired and did not return to the facility. Review of the MDS tracking system on [DATE], indicated the assessment remained open and exceeded 120 days without completion or closure. The MDS tracking system failed to include documented evidence the facility completed a required discharge assessment or took action to close the MDS following the resident's hospital transfer and death. During interview on [DATE] at 12:24 p.m., the Registered Nurse Manager (NM) stated the MDS assessment should have been closed or the 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 · D2026-02-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed and updated to address identified needs for 2 of 2 residents (R1 and R4) reviewed for development of care plans.Findings include:R1:R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) including transfers. R1's diagnoses included pneumonia, arthritis, non-Alzheimer's dementia, malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, and disorientation. The MDS also identified R1 required occasional assistance with locomotion and utilized a wheelchair for mobility.R1's comprehensive care plan, print date of 2/12/26, failed to address R1's locomotion status, including wheelchair use or the need for foot pedals for safe mobility. r1's care plan failed to include guidance outlining how staff were to assist R1 with transfers or wheelchair mobility.R4:R4's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified R4 had moderately impaired…
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 · D2026-02-12 · 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 observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice to prevent avoidable harm for 1 of 1 resident (R1) observed during wheelchair transport.Findings include:R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). R1's diagnoses included pneumonia (a lung infection), arthritis (joint inflammation causing pain and limited mobility), non-Alzheimer's dementia (a condition affecting cognition and functional abilities), malnutrition (inadequate nutritional status), localized edema (fluid-related swelling), adult failure to thrive (characterized by weight loss and functional decline), and disorientation (impaired awareness of person, place, or time). The MDS also indicated R1 required occasional assistance with locomotion and utilized a wheelchair for mobility. During observation on 2/9/26 at 7:52 a.m., R1 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-09 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 an elopement incident was reported to the State Agency (SA) not later than 24 hours for 1 of 1 residents (R32) reviewed for elopement. Findings include: R32's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R32 had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance with cares. R32 had diagnoses which included amputated toes of left foot, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and muscle weakness. R32's care plan revised 6/1/24, identified R32 had potential for elopement related to elopement 5/31/24 (completed after the reported incident). R32's progress notes were reviewed and identified the following entries: - 5/31/2024, at 8:10 p.m. assisted with toileting about 7:30 p.m. refused medications and blood sugar check. When staff went to check on resident at about 8:00 p.m. room door did not open. - 5/31/2024, at 8:15 p.m. family updated was refusing medications, door to room wouldn't open and was observed from his window to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-09 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 accurately complete a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 1 resident, (R23), who was reviewed for dental status Finding include: R23's admission assessment Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R23 had significant cognitive impairment, however, was independent with eating and oral hygiene. The MDS indicated R23 required assistance with dressing, personal grooming (outside of oral hygiene), and required full assistance with mobility. R23's medical diagnoses included a joint replacement, dementia (a group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life), multiple sclerosis (MS-a disease process which has been known to cause numbness, weakness, trouble walking, vision changes and other symptoms), anemia (a problem of not having enough healthy red blood cells or hemoglobin to carry oxygen to the body's tissues), atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm),…
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 · Fcited before2023-11-08 · 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 record review the facility failed to maintain proper records of kitchen dishwasher temperature logs. This had the potential to affect all 27 residents. Findings include: During observation on 11/6/23 at 11:30 a.m., temperature logs were unable to be located during intital kitchen tour. During observation on 11/7/23 at 2:16 p.m., rinse temp on dishwasher test during kitchen tour with certified dietary manager (CDM-A), reached 175 dgrees on final rinse. When interviewed on 11/7/23 at 2:20 p.m., CDM-A stated she did not know why the temperature was not reaching full temperature and if the gauge was accurate. CDM-A said she could not find previous temp logs but would look. During observation on 11/7/23 at 5:20 p.m., with facility Administrator, the facility dishwasher was able to reach temperature with a temperature test strip. When interviewed on 11/7/23 at 5:30 p.m., facility Administrator stated the dishwasher had just been reviewed by the lease company Eco-labs, and that the temperatures of the dishwasher should be recorded and logged. When…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY — 92 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 91 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 91; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2019 |
| SANFORD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2019 |
| BROWN, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| DYKHOUSE, DANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| ENGBRECHT, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GASSEN, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GULSVIG, NEIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| HERSETH SANDLIN, STEPHANIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| LUNDEEN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| MCCAUSLAND, MAUREEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MOLBERT, LAURIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| NORTH, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| SCHIEFFER, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SHULKIN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2020 |
| TEIKEN, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| WENZEL, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FLUIT, JOEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/03/2026 |
| MIDDLETON, AIMEE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/27/2022 |
| OLSON, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2024 |
| SCHEMA, NATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| LEWIS, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/25/2025 |
| MORRISON, TONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| SALONEK, LAURA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/08/2008 |
| SANDGREN, DEEANDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/16/2023 |
| DTN STAFFING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2024 |
| FOCUSONE SOLUTIONS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/04/2024 |
| GRAPE TREE MEDICAL STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/13/2018 |
| GUARDIAN PHARMACY OF MINNESOTA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/26/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 56 rows in the source record cover these 29 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $636K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 245278. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-12, 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.