Pathstone Living
718 Mound Avenue, Mankato, MN 56001 · Non profit - Corporation · 69 certified beds · (507) 345-4576 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (39) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $120,546 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-12)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 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 and quality-measure ratings run 4 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
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 | 1 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 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 20.2% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.5% | 4.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 8.7% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.6% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.6% | 4.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 36.6% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.8% | 12.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.7% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 5.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.2% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.5% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.3% | 82.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.3% | 23.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.6% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.91 | 1.61 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.93 | 1.90 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
73.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 295 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 71.1% 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 159 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 0.74 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 93% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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
| 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 | 73.8%CMS range 68.5–77.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 7.1–12.9 | 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 | 71.1% | 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 | 44.0% | 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 | 75.5% | 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 | 99.0% | 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 | 98.3% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 1.0% | 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 | 2.5% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 3.8–9.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.91 | 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 69 beds and averages 61.4 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 8 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 4.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.23 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.92 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.21 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.45 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as 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.
39 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 26 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-09-12 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to recognize a sudden change of condition which resulted in a delay of treatment for 1 of 3 resident (R1) reviewed with change condition. As a result R1 experienced chest pain was hospitalized and died. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) began on [DATE] when licensed nursing staff failed to comprehensively assess and monitor R1 after he voiced he was having chest pain. The Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on [DATE] at 4:30 p.m. The IJ was removed on [DATE] but non-compliance remained at the lower scope and severity level 2 (D), which indicated no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not IJ. Findings include: R1's face sheet dated [DATE], identified R1 admitted 7/24. R1 had diagnoses of non-st elevation myocardial infarction (heart attack that happens when part of your heart is not getting enough oxygen), atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm in the heart's upper chambers), history of stroke (blood…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-03-08 · 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 comprehensively assess, implement interventions, and provide timely notification for change in condition to a provider for 1 of 1 resident (R1) who was found unresponsive which delayed care resulting in death from acute respiratory distress. The facility's failures resulted in an immediate jeopardy for R1. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) began on 3/3/24, when licensed nursing staff failed to comprehensively assess and monitor R1 after being notified by several nursing assistants of R1's change in condition which included decreased appetite, facial pallor, blue lips, increased fatigue, lethargy, and decreased responsiveness. The Administrator and Director of Nursing were notified of the IJ on 3/7/24 at 5:25 p.m. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 3/8/24 at 2:40 p.m. but noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity level 2 (D), which indicated no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2023-10-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure safe mechanical lift transfers were completed along with following manufacturer guidelines on how to apply slings,harness, and checking strap before using them for 4 of 4 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4), who utilized a mechanical lift. This resulted in immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R1, R2, R3, R4 when staff were not implementing recent retraining resulting in residents sliding through the lift sling, pain and anxiety when transferred with the lift causing the likelihood for serious harm, impairment or death if they fell from the lift. The immediate jeopardy began on 10/6/23 when nursing assistant (NA)-F transferred R1, not in accordance with the care plan, which resulted in a fall from lift. This same practice resulted in a fall from a lift on 10/8/23 with R2. The immediate jeopardy was identified on 10/18/23, and the administrator and director of nursing were notified on 10/18/23 at 2:28 p.m. The immediate jeopardy was removed 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 before2026-03-06 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer long-acting insulin at consistent times for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R4), failed to appropriately respond to abnormal blood glucose levels, and failed to ensure monitoring and follow-up after interventions for hypoglycemia for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for diabetic management.R1's face sheet dated 3/5/26, identified a diagnosis type 2 diabetes mellitus.R1's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had no cognition issues. R1 was on a therapeutic diet and received insulin injections seven days per week.R1's care plan revised on 3/4/25, identified a focus of risk for complications related to altered glucose metabolism. Diagnosis of diabetes mellitus with retinopathy (damage to retina of the eye). Interventions included:administer medication(s) to control glucose levels and/or insulin as ordered. Monitor for side effects and effectiveness. Report adverse effects to provider as needed. If infection is…
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 · F2025-12-15 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 sufficient staffing to ensure 7 of 7 residents (R4, R7, R10, R11, R14, R18, and R46) reviewed for adequate staffing received timely assistance with incontinence care, hydration, and prompt call light responses. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all 61 residents who resided in the facility. Finding include: See F676- Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents received assistance with meals for 1 of 2 resident (R5) reviewed for nutrition who required staff assistance and/or supervision with meals See F677- Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care for 1 of 1 resident (R12) reviewed who was dependent upon staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). See 921- Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and sanitary environment for 1 of 1 resident (R4)…
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 before2025-12-15 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — widespreadEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 nursing staff had specific competencies and skill sets necessary to care for resident needs as identified through resident assessments and plan; failed to ensure accuracy of wound assessments for 2 of 3 residents (R12 and R13) reviewed for pressure wounds. In addition, failed to provide services to maintain and/or prevent loss of range of motion (ROM) for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed for limited range of motion and ensure a hand splint was properly applied to ensure palmar protection. In addition, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R46) reviewed for colostomy care. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure staff competent in cleaning mechanical lift equipment. This had potential to affect all 61 residents who resided in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 personnel records (registered nurse (RN)-I) reviewed included evidence of orientation to facility.…
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 · F2025-12-15 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff adhered to basic infection control practices, specifically hand-hygiene, when serving residents in the dining room. This had the potential to affect all residents who ate meals in the dining room. Findings include: During an observation on 12/8/25 at 11:55 a.m., during lunch service, observed dining assistant (DA)-A fill beverages from a beverage cart for residents seated at the supervised table. DA-A was observed touching her face and eyeglasses with her hands, then fill a cup of juice and set it in front of an unidentified resident. DA-A then filled a cup of milk and holding it by the rim where the resident would place his lips, placed it on the table. During an observation on 12/8/25, at 12:00 p.m., as DA-A was walking toward the kitchen, observed DA-A rub her nose with her hand, then touch her hair, then using the palm of her right hand, rubbed it up and down against her nose. DA-A then entered the kitchen to do something at the cappuccino dispenser. While DA-A was at the cappuccino dispenser, 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 · F2025-12-15 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, administration failed to exercise effective oversight and ensure corrective action of multiple, ongoing deficient practices across departments. The administration had knowledge of these issues through staffing data, QAPI activities, staff reports, and prior monitoring, yet failed to implement timely and effective interventions, resulting in continued noncompliance. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all 61 residents who resided in the facility.Findings include:See F609/F610- Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to protect personal property from misappropriation of funds, failed to secure and account for the resident's money, failed to report the allegation, and failed to conduct a comprehensive documented investigation, despite repeated concerns expressed by the resident and staff. As a result, R55 experienced ongoing emotional distress, anxiety, and agitation related to the missing funds and the lack of response from the facility. The facility also allowed the accused staff…
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 · F2025-12-15 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to conduct ongoing quality assessment (QA) and assurance activities and develop and implement action plans in order to correct quality deficiencies identified during the survey that the facility was aware of or should have been aware of. This had the potential to affect all 61 residents residing in the facility.Findings include:Review of Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting minutes since last survey 2/2025, indicated the following:2/24/25: Care Center clinical data was reviewed for trends and patterns. Care Center annual survey results reviewed, awaiting 2567.3/24/25: Review of hospitalizations/ED visits, risk management, wounds, weight trends, pain, unmet needs. February 2025 annual survey-four citations. Current one star rating, team review and discussion.4/28/25: Review of hospitalizations/ED visits, risk management, wound, weight trends, pain, unmet needs. Hospital transfers, review of trends.5/2025: No meeting.6/23/25: Review of witnessed/unwitnessed falls, medication errors. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to sanitize and/or replace resident water mugs on a daily basis for 7 of 7 residents (R10, R4, R7, R30, R39, R54, R17), reviewed for infection control practices, to ensure a safe and sanitary vessel from which residents consumed water. This had the potential to affect all 61 residents residing in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure basic infection control practices were followed when 3 of 3 residents (R13, R3, R43) urinary drainage bags were observed resting on the floor. Findings include: WATER MUG DISINFECTING R30's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R30 had no cognitive impairment, no rejection of care, utilized a wheelchair, independent with eating, required substantial/maximal assistance with shower/bath, lower body dressing, dependent on toileting hygiene and transfers, diagnoses included anxiety and depression R30's care plan dated 9/11/25, indicated R30 has risk for constipation r/t (related 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 · Fcited before2025-12-15 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and sanitary environment for 1 of 1 resident (R4) reviewed for environment, when a bedside commode was observed overfilled and a soiled brief was observed in a wastebasket. In addition, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in the kitchen food preparation and service areas, this had the potential to affect all 61 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: R4's face sheet provided on 12/15/25, included diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis affecting one side of the body) following stroke, diabetes, chronic pain, and dementia. R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, clear speech, was usually understood and was usually able to understand. R4 had highly impaired vision with adequate hearing. R4 required substantial assistance or was dependent upon staff for help with activities of daily living (ADLs). R4 did not walk. R4's care plan with revised 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 a skin injury had a timely assessment and documentation for 1 of 1 resident (R30), reviewed for non-pressure wounds; failed to ensure accuracy of wound assessments for 2 of 3 residents (R12 and R13) reviewed for pressure wound; failed to ensure an accurate, new, comprehensive assessment was completed for newly identified facility acquired toe wounds for 1 of 1 resident (R3) reviewed for non-pressure wounds. Findings include: TIMELY ASSESSMENT R30's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R2 had no cognitive impairment, no rejection of care, utilized a wheelchair, required substantial/maximal assistance with shower/bath, lower body dressing, dependent on toileting hygiene and transfers, diagnoses included diabetes and arthritis. R30's Care Area Assessment (CAA) worksheet dated 9/9/25, indicated staff will monitor skin and report changes for further evaluation/intervention/treatment as appropriate. R30's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-15 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
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 provide fresh drinking water to 7 of 7 residents (R10, R4, R30, R7, R49, R54, R17) on a daily basis who were reviewed for hydration. Findings include: R10's face sheet provided on 12/15/25, included diagnoses of spinal stenosis (narrowing of spaces within spine causing pain), diabetes and chronic kidney disease (kidneys cannot filter waster and fluid from blood effectively). R10's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, clear speech, could understand and was usually understood. R10 required substantial assistance or was dependent upon staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) but could eat and drink independently. R10 did not walk. R10's provider orders dated 6/4/25, indicated a diet with thin liquids. R10's care plan dated 9/27/24, indicated ensure adequate fluid intake, offer fluids and keep water at bedside for easy access. Care plan dated 12/18/24, indicated staff were to refill water cup every day…
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.
Show the remaining 26 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-15 · 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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to notify the provider of a choking episode for 1 of 2 residents (R11) reviewed for accidents and skin injury for 2 of 2 residents (R30, R3) reviewed for skin. Findings include: Accidents R11's annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated moderately impaired cognition, no rejection of care, use of walker and wheelchair, independent with eating, and diagnosis of heart failure and fracture. R11's care plan revised 5/21/25, indicated self-care performance deficit related to weakness associated with fracture and eating assistance for set up and clean up but could eat independently. R11's physician's orders dated 4/9/25, indicated regular diet, regular texture, thin liquid consistency. Facility progress note dated 12/6/25 at 5:15 p.m., indicated R11 choked at dinner table, raised her hand and pointed at throat, staff performed Heimlich maneuver and resident started coughing and worked through episode. Emergency contact made…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-15 · 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 allegations of missing money were reported timely to the State Agency for 1 of 1 resident (R55) reviewed missing property. In addition, the facility to report choking incident with care plan not being followed for 1 of 2 residents (R5) reviewed for accidents. R55's 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R55 initial admit date was [DATE], makes self-understood, ability to understand others, adequate hearing, severely impaired vision, moderately impaired cognition, no hallucinations or delusions, no rejection of care, utilized a manual wheelchair, required substantial/maximal assistance with eating, showers, upper body dressing; dependent on toileting, lower body dressing, putting on footwear, and transfers; diagnoses included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, depression, end stage renal disease with dialysis, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, and essential tremor. Department of Public Safety Report dated 12/1/25 at 2:11…
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 · D2025-12-15 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure actions were taken to prevent further misappropriation of funds for 1 of 1 and resident (R55) reviewed for missing property and prevent further neglect due to lack of following the care plan for 1 of 2 residents (R5) reviewed for accidents. Further the facility failed to fully investigate these allegations or take actions to protect other residents. Finding include: R55's 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R55 initial admit date was [DATE], makes self-understood, ability to understand others, adequate hearing, severely impaired vision, moderately impaired cognition, no hallucinations or delusions, no rejection of care, utilized a manual wheelchair, required substantial/maximal assistance with eating, showers, upper body dressing; dependent on toileting, lower body dressing, putting on footwear, and transfers; diagnoses included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, depression, end stage renal disease with dialysis, muscle…
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 · D2025-12-15 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or legal representative received a bed hold notice and written notice of transfer for 2 of 2 residents (R13 and R4), reviewed for hospitalization, who were transferred to the hospital for overnight stays. Findings include:R13's face sheet provided on 12/15/25, included diagnoses of congestive heart failure (when the heart cannot pump effectively), chronic kidney disease (kidneys cannot filter blood well) and urinary retention. R13's face sheet indicated R13 was the responsible party and other individuals were listed as emergency contacts.R13's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, clear speech, was able to understand and be understood. R13 required substantial assistance or was dependent upon staff for most activities of daily living (ADLs). R13 had an indwelling urinary catheter. R13 did not walk. R13's progress note order dated 12/2/25 at 1:15 p.m., indicated nurse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-15 · 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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded for 1 of 1 resident (R13) reviewed for MDS accuracy and 1 of 1 resident (R55) reviewed for dialysis. Findings include: R13's face sheet provided on 12/15/25, included diagnoses of pressure ulcer of contiguous site of back, buttock and hip, unstageable, and irritant contact dermatitis due to fecal, urinary or dual incontinence. R13's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, clear speech, was understood and could understand. R13 required substantial staff assistance or was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) and did not walk. R13 had a urinary catheter and was occasionally incontinent of bowel. R13 was at risk for pressure ulcers and had an unhealed pressure ulcer. R13 had two unstageable pressure injuries presenting as deep tissue injury, not present on admission. R13's pressure ulcer/injury Care Area…
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 · D2025-12-15 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R46) reviewed for colostomy care.Findings include: R46's face sheet provided on 12/15/25, included diagnoses of malignant neoplasm (cancer) of rectum, rectosigmoid junction (where the S-shaped sigmoid colon joins the rectum) and anus (the exit point for feces [stool] from the body). R46's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, clear speech, was understood and could usually understand. R46 had an ostomy, specifically a colostomy (an opening in the abdomen connecting the large intestine to the outside of the body), required supervision or was dependent upon staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). R46's Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 10/27/25, did not identify an ostomy or colostomy. R46's physician orders and TAR (treatment administration record) dated 12/1/25, included change colostomy bag twice a week on Mondays and Fridays. 1) Use stoma cleanser…
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 · D2025-12-15 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents received assistance with meals for 1 of 2 resident (R5) reviewed for nutrition who required staff assistance and/or supervision with meals.Findings include:R5's five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated severely impaired cognition, no behaviors or rejection of care, use of wheelchair, substantial/maximal assistance for eating and oral hygiene, dependent for shower/bath, dressing, and toileting hygiene, and diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, depression, and pressure ulcers.R5's care plan revised 10/27/25, indicated self-care performance deficit related to cognitive and physical limitations with intervention of supervision/touch assistance of one helper for eating. Helper to provide verbal cues, touch/steady, and/or contact guard assist intermittently.R5's physician orders dated 10/15/25, indicated regular diet, soft and bite sized texture, thin liquids.Facility chart progress note dated 12/7/25 at…
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 · D2025-12-15 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care for 1 of 1 resident (R12) reviewed who was dependent upon staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). Findings include: R12's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated: severe cognitive impairment, no rejection of care, dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, shower/bath, lower body dressing, personal hygiene, and transfers, utilized a wheelchair, current toileting program, always incontinent of urine, frequently incontinent of bowel; diagnoses included cerebrovascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic attack (TIA), or stroke, anxiety, depression, history of falling.R12's Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 8/29/25, requires assist x2 staff for toileting tasks, including assistance with transfers, peri cares, and clothing management, as well as the use of an EZ Stand (mechanical lift) for transfers, not aware of the need to toilet, so staff anticipate needs, on a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-15 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide services to maintain and/or prevent loss of range of motion (ROM) for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed for limited range of motion. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a hand splint was properly applied to ensure palmar protection. Findings include:R4's face sheet provided on 12/15/25, indicated diagnosis of hemiplegia (paralysis affecting one side of the body) following stroke and affecting his left side. R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, clear speech, was usually understood and was usually able to understand. R4 required substantial assistance or was dependent upon staff for help with most activities of daily living (ADLs). R4 did not walk.R4's provider orders dated 12/2/25, indicated the following: 1) PT/OT (physical therapy/occupational therapy evaluation and treatment every shift. 2) Apply resting hand splint when in wheelchair, at HS (bedtime) and in the morning.…
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 before2025-02-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and document review the facility failed to ensure the infection control program included ongoing surveillance, trending and analysis of resident infections, and failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were implemented for 1 of 1 residents (R38) reviewed for nephrostomy tube. This had potential to affect all 64 residents who resided in the facility. Finding include: On 2/11/25 at 1:23 p.m., during an interview the assistant director of nursing (ADON)-B who also identified as infection preventionist, stated he tracked and documented infections and antibiotics use on a software program but was having difficulty accessing reports. ADON-B showed a separate spread sheet used for Influenza and Covid-19 outbreaks they recently had in December 2024 and January 2025, which did not include signs and symptoms, treatment, or if transmission based precautions were implemented. On 2/11/25 at 2:45 p.m., the ADON-B was able to print out infection/antibiotic use lists. The form…
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 · Ecited before2025-02-11 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a process for antibiotic review in order to determine appropriate indications, dosage, duration, trends of antibiotic use and resistance. This had the potential to affect any residents who had infections requiring antibiotic use. Finding include: On 2/11/25 at 1:23 p.m.,during an interview, the assistance director of nursing (ADON)-B, also identified as infection preventionist, stated he tracked and documented infections and antibiotics use on a software program but was not able to print out any reports. On 2/11/25 at 2:45 p.m., ADON-B was able to print out infection/antibiotic use lists. Review of the facility's monthly antibiotic use from 5/1/24 through February 11, 2025, included: resident, unit/room number, infection date, infection, diagnosis, medication, provider, outcome, date infection resolved and bacteria. There was also a space for signs and symptoms and other information located underneath the headings. Review of the data indicated 34 urinary tract infections (UTI) treated with antibiotics out of 37…
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 · D2025-02-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a care plan included cultural aspects for 1 of 2 residents (R20) reviewed for food. Findings include: R20's facesheet printed on 2/11/25, included diagnoses of chronic kidney disease, heart failure and diabetes. R20's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated he was moderately impaired cognition, clear speech, was understood and could understand. R20 had no problems eating and required partial assistance with most activities of daily living. R20's physician orders dated 1/6/25, included a low sodium diet; 1/11/25, oral supplement, and 1/16/25, daily weights. R20's care plan dated 1/10/25, indicated R20 had a potential nutritional problem related to risk for malnutrition and need for a therapeutic diet. The care plan did not include cultural aspects at all, including food and/or meal preferences for R20. R20's [NAME] (a brief overview summarizing a residents care plan and used by NA's (nursing assistants) did 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-11 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 7 (R16, R54, R226) resident ceiling vents in the 3400 wing were clean when they had a black substance present on the vents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors on the 3400 wings. Findings include: R16's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R16 was admitted on [DATE]. R54's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R54 was admitted [DATE]. R226'S entry MDS 1/30/25, indicated R226 was admitted [DATE]. On 2/10/25 at 2:14 p.m., R226 stated the vent on his ceiling was dirty, and stated he didn't know if it was just dirt or mold. R226's ceiling vent was observed and the vent slates were covered with black substance. On 2/11/25 at 7:52 a.m., R226's ceiling vent was observed with the maintenance director (MD)-A and MD-A stated the vent had dust and dirt buildup and the vents need to be taken down and cleaned. MD-A added it was likely due to moisture causing the dirt 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 · Fcited before2024-04-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and document review the facility failed to ensure the infection control program included ongoing surveillance, trending and analysis of resident infections, staff doffed (removed) personal protective equipment (PPE) incorrectly for 1 of 1 resident (R16), failed to ensure PPE was stored in a manner to prevent transmission of bacteria when PPE was observed stored directly on the floor for 18 of 18 residents (R12, R52, R218, R3, R20, R36, R41, R10, R27, R15, R16, R6, R8, R17, R57, R46, R21, and R219) placed on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and the staff placed a meal tray on the floor for 1 of 1 resident (R27). This had the potential to affect all 56 residents who resided in the facility. Finding include: Enhanced Barrier Precautions Facility document titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions printed 4/10/24, indicated the following residents had Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) R12, R52, R218, R3, R20, R36, R41, R10, R27, R15, R16, R6, R8, R17, R57, R46, R21, and R219. During an…
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 · Ecited before2024-04-11 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a process for antibiotic review in order to determine appropriate indications, dosage, duration, trends of antibiotic use and resistance. This had the potential to affect any of the 56 residents who had infections requiring antibiotic use. Findings include: During interview on 4/10/24, 1:13 p.m., with the director of nursing (DON) and assistant director of nursing (ADON), who was the infection prevention nurse. The DON stated the nurses completed monitoring of symptoms if resident had a possible infection and report that information to the providers. The provider identified potential infections and order testing and review the cultures. The DON further stated the nursing staff also were responsible to review lab and culture results to ensure resident is taking proper antibiotic. The ADON stated he was the infection prevention nurse and was responsible for the infection control program, including antibiotic stewardship. The ADON confirmed education completion of infection control/prevention and antibiotic…
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 before2024-04-11 · 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 allegation of misappropriation of property was reported to the state agency (SA) within 24 hours, in accordance with established policies and procedures, for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for allegation of money theft. Findings include: R1's facesheet printed on 4/11/24, included diagnoses of macular degeneration (an eye disease that causes vision loss) and cognitive communication deficit. R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 was cognitively intact, had adequate vision and hearing, clear speech, was understood and able to understand. R1 was independent with most activities of daily living. R1's care plan initiated on 8/18/23, indicated R1 had a behavior problem of paranoia related to dementia and would have fewer episodes of paranoia. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 1:20 p.m., R1 stated he had cash stolen from his room a couple weeks ago, approximately $70 in a pouch. R1 stated the facility was aware of 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 · Dcited before2024-04-11 · 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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident status was accurately identified in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 2 of 2 resident (R52, R21) reviewed for hospice and pressure ulcers. Findings include: R52's Face Sheet indicated admission date was 2/7/24, and diagnoses of malignant neoplasm (uncontrolled growth and division of abnormal cells) of upper lobe of lung, malignant neoplasm of bone and heart failure. R52's admission significant change, Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], section O, K1 under special treatments and programs, did not include hospice care services. Section J 1400 Prognosis: conditions or chronic diseases that may result in a life expectancy of less than 6 months was marked as yes. R52's provider order dated 2/29/24, indicated hospice was to evaluate. During interview on 4/8/24 at 12:42 p.m., R52 indicated she is receiving hospice services but was not sure who the hospice agency was. During interview on 4/9/24 at 8:56 a.m., registered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 offer/provide a summary of the baseline care plan to the resident and/or resident representative for 3 of 3 residents (R29, R57, R112 ) reviewed who were newly admitted . Findings include: R112's admission Record identified an admission date of 3/22/24, with diagnoses of displaced fracture of head of right radius (bone of forearm) and fracture (break) around internal prosthetic right hip joint (hip replacement). R112's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R112 as having a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. R112's activities of daily living MDS section was not completed. R112's baseline care plan indicated R112 required staff will assist with dressing grooming with extensive to limited assistance as R112 is non weight bearing on right leg. Comments included use pivot disc and assist of two from wheelchair to bed or recliner. When interviewed on 4/8/24 at 4:15 p.m.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 individualized activities were provided for 1 of 1 resident (R29) reviewed for activities. Findings include: R29's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R29 was admitted to the facility 3/5/24, had moderately intact cognition, dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, required substantial/maximal assistance with shower/bathe and dressing, required supervision with eating and oral hygiene, identified it was very important to do his favorite activities, keep up with the news, participate in religious services, and go outside to get fresh air, and somewhat important to have reading material, listen to music, and do things with groups of people and diagnoses included pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and mild cognitive impairment, . R29's care plan dated 3/5/24, did not include R29's activities, interests or interventions related to activities. R29's baseline care plan dated 3/5/24, activities coordinator…
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 before2024-04-11 · 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, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure services were coordinated with the hospice agency for 1 of 1 resident (R52) reviewed who received hospice services. Findings include: R52's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], required substantial to maximum staff assistance with all activities of daily living except set up assist for eating and oral hygiene. R52's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicated intact cognition and understands and is understood. R52's facility care plan, dated 3/21/24, included the resident is at the end stage of life and is utilizing hospice services. Intervention included coordinate care with hospice and other end of life services. R52's (local hospice agency) current plan of care, dated 3/28/24, indicated a registered nurse (RN) would provide services 1-2 times times a week (1-2 x/wk) and the home health aide (HHA) 2 times per week. The care plan indicated R52 is her own person, and does not need calls prior to visits.…
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 before2024-04-11 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document the facility failed to ensure a range of motion program for upper extremities was implemented, wrist brace was applied correctly, and edema glove was on for 1 of 2 residents (R14) who had limited range of motion to prevent contractures. Findings include: R14's face sheet printed 4/10/24, included diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness one on side of the body) following cerebral infarction (central nervous system injury) affecting left non-dominate side, osteoarthritis, and muscle weakness. R14's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R14 had intact cognition, dependent on staff for transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene, and limited range of motion (ROM) on one side. R14's provider orders dated 5/7/21, included apply resting hand splint on when in wheelchair and at bedtime. Document refusals. Apply edema glove during the day and off at bedtime. Document refusals. R14's plan of care last revised…
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 before2024-04-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to properly assess disposing of cigarettes for 1 of 1 resident (R57) reviewed for smoking. Findings include: R57's admission Minimum Data Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R57 had severe cognitive impairment, required supervision with personal hygiene, sit to stand, chair transfer, and walking and diagnoses included aphasia (ability to understand or express speech), hemiplegia following cerebral infract (paralysis of partial or total body function on one side of the body after a stroke) affecting right side, tobacco use, muscle weakness, anxiety disorder, depression, and diabetes. R57's care plan revised 4/8/24, indicated R57 would like to smoke while residing at this care community, was offered smoking cessation options and declined, (was on nicotine patch when first admitted , requested for them to be stopped d/t being ineffective for him), will not smoke unless directly supervised by family/responsible party/staff as evidenced…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 insulin was administered per physician orders for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for medication administration. Findings include: R1's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated R1 was cognitively intact, had a diagnosis of diabetes, and required insulin 7 of 7 days in the lookback period. R1's care plan dated [DATE], indicated R1 would be free of signs or symptoms of hypoglycemia (a condition in which the body's blood sugar level goes below the standard range) and monitor for sweating, tremor, increased heart rate, confusion, slurred speech, lack of coordination, and staggering gait. R1's Physician's orders dated [DATE] directed detemir insulin (Levemir) inject 34 units subcutaneously (under the skin) at bedtime related to diabetes. R1's Physician's orders for insulin glargine dated [DATE] directed inject 40 units subq at bedtime related to diabetes. The order further directed, Start when Levemir is used up. On [DATE] at 11:50 p.m.,…
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 · Ecited before2023-10-20 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure 7 of 7 nursing assistant students (NA-F, NA-J, NA-K, NA-L, NA-M, NA-N and NA-O) involved in the facility's nursing assistant student training program included a system to ensure return demonstration competency for mechanical lift transfers were evaluated by qualified staff to ensure students were adequately trained to safely operate mechanical lifts. This had the potential to affect all 44 of 65 residents who used mechanical lifts in the facility. Findings include Document titled Ecumen 75 hour Nursing Assistant Course indicates students are to complete a satisfactory demonstration of the skills on the performance record which are required in the laboratory prior to clinical experience. Instructors will evaluate students' performance according to the state approved checklist. Students will not be assigned to clinical if requirements are not met. During interview on 10/20/23 at 8:20 a.m. program training coordinator (PTC)-A indicated she assisted in initiating the nursing assistant training program at the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-12-15 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 required nursing staffing information was posted for residents, staff and visitors. This had the potential to affect all 61 residents residing in the facility and their visitors.Findings include: During an interview and observation on 12/9/25 at 2:02 p.m., after being unable to locate the Daily Staffing Posting, the executive director (ED)-A, escorted surveyor to the location it had been posted. ED-A handed over a documented from a Plexiglas sign holder located on first floor by other resident information and the fish tank. The Daily Staffing Posting had not been recognizable among other documents and was a four-page, estimated seven font, six column, 35 row, electronically generated document from their scheduling software UKG (Ultimate Kronos Group), titled Daily Headcount for the time frame of 12/4/25 through 12/10/25. Only the dates of 12/4/25, 12/6/25, and 12/9/25, were identifiable as other dates had been cut off. Column headings included: shift, current resident census, staff category, actual…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · Ccited before2024-04-11 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment in the kitchen serving food preparation area and drying pots/pans area. This had the potential to affect all 56 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: On 4/8/24 at 12:00 p.m., during initial tour of the kitchen, a vent with 2 rungs present had dark fuzzy material on the top rung. This was over the pots and pans dishwashing area and where pots and pans were left to dry. Above the food serving area, 3 plugs were present in a wire mesh that extended down approximately 5-6 inches that had gray fuzzy debris present. A white flat printer cord extended from ceiling to the printer and was covered in gray, fuzzy debris. These cords were located above the clean plates and near the steam table area on the left and next to a food prep area on the right. During observation and interview on 4/9/24 at 11:33 a.m., the vent remained covered in dark fuzzy debris along with the wire mesh and white printer cord. [NAME] (C)-A indicated the dietary staff clean the vents but maintenance would…
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
$120,546 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $14,433 — penalty dated 2024-09-12
- $16,801 — penalty dated 2024-03-08
- $89,312 — penalty dated 2023-10-20
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ECUMEN — 5 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 | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 3.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MANKATO LUTHERAN HOMES, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/15/1994 |
| CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2006 |
| ACKERMAN, KENDRA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/12/2024 |
| ANDRESEN, ANGELICA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/24/2023 |
| ANZEL, JOSEPH | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/12/2019 |
| AUGUSTSON, JEANETTE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/18/2022 |
| BERGSTROM, SUSAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/25/2025 |
| BOLES, AMY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| BRESSER, HEATHER | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/29/2022 |
| CONLIN, JAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/09/2024 |
| FREY, MARY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/21/2024 |
| GAMST, BLAINE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/04/2024 |
| GETAWEH, SHARLENE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/25/2025 |
| HAAS, JENNIFER | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/27/2005 |
| HALEY, TAMI | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/18/2022 |
| HARRISON, DOUGLAS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/16/2025 |
| HAUSCHILD, RACHEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/09/2006 |
| HORVATH, BRIAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/09/2012 |
| ISERMAN, BRENT | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/25/2025 |
| KELLER, KERRI | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/06/2013 |
| KENDRICK, SHELLEY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/04/2019 |
| KROLAK, JR., THOMAS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/24/2025 |
| KULL, MARCIA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| LARSON, JANA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/30/2023 |
| LAWTON, NOELLE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/19/2024 |
| LAXDAL SOMMER, EMILY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/22/2024 |
| LEFFNER, JACQUELINE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/28/2022 |
| LEWISON, BRIDGET | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/24/2025 |
| MCALPINE, JAMES | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/08/2021 |
| MEYER, JODI | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/11/2024 |
| MROSLA, DANIELLE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| OLSON, AMY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/21/2025 |
| OLSON, ANNIKA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/09/2024 |
| OSMAN, AMAL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/14/1995 |
| PALMER, TINA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/29/2024 |
| PETRABORG, JOHN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/21/2013 |
| PLAMANN, JOY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/22/2024 |
| ROATH, ALVIN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/12/2017 |
| RUDENICK, TERRY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2020 |
| SCHOWALTER, JAMES | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/21/2025 |
| SCHUH, SUSAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/16/2016 |
| SCHUNA, PETER | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/22/2024 |
| SLETTE, KATLYN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/30/2023 |
| SNYDER, NILS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/21/2024 |
| SPEARMAN, JESSICA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/27/2013 |
| STEVENS, ANGELA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/14/2010 |
| THOM, JAMIE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2001 |
| TITUS, MARTHA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/13/2012 |
| VANG, KOU | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/05/2020 |
| WILLIAMS, EMILY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/04/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 163 rows in the source record cover these 50 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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 $764K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 245390. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-15, 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.