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

Avera Morningside Heights Care Center

300 South Bruce Street, Marshall, MN 56258 · Non profit - Corporation · 76 certified beds · (507) 537-9394 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (507) 537-9394 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
2 actual-harm citations1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$17,345 in federal fines1 Medicare payment denial
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • 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 (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $17,345 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-24)
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
300 S Bruce St · (507) 537-9007 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1104 E College Dr · (507) 537-7070 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1113 E College Dr Ste 6 · (507) 929-1020 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
501 S Whitney St · (507) 532-6642

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 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 held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased34.5%18.2%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.7%4.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.5%1.9%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.9%2.6%2.0%typical
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%4.1%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.9%4.0%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened32.1%20.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication13.5%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.0%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers8.6%5.2%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control29.9%24.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table11.7%17.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%1.9%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine70.0%82.7%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission14.0%23.5%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.1%14.8%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.211.611.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days3.611.901.80worse

* 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.

62.0% 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 133 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

62.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
85.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.27U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 85.7% 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 84 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF62.0%CMS range 53.7–71.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.6%CMS range 7.3–13.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge85.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge75.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge71.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge98.2%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened5.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.7%CMS range 4.4–12.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.821.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

1.01
RN hours/ resident / day
0.31
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.48
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.80
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.68
RN hoursweekends
24.4%
Total nursing turnover
33.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 76 beds and averages 71.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.01 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.48 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 4.46 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.94 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.15 to 0.68 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-12-03)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2024-10-30)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-09-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure staff appropriately assessed, monitored, intervened, and notified the family in a timely manner after a fall for 1 of 1 resident (R1) resulting in a brain bleed and skull fracture causing serious harm and eventual death. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) began 9/15/25 at 10:23 p.m., when the facility failed to ensure staff appropriately assessed, monitored, and intervened after a fall for 1 of 1 resident (R1) who had an unwitnessed fall with visible facial bruising and facial structure abnormalities, that resulted in delayed medical examination by a physician and early treatment. R1 was finally transferred to the emergency room 9 hours post fall to the local hospital, where a brain bleed and skull fracture were discovered resulting in serious harm and eventual death. The facility administrator and director of nursing were notified of the IJ on 9/24/25 at 12:34 p.m. The facility had implemented immediate corrective action beginning 9/18/25 through 9/21/25, to prevent recurrence; therefore, the IJ was issued at PAST…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2026-03-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent falls for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for falls. R2 needed increased monitoring for safety due to her fall risk with one-to-one (1:1) supervision which was not provided when the nursing assistant (NA) left R2 alone to go wash their hands. R2 then fell causing harm when R2 obtained a left olecranon (elbow) fracture which needed surgery. Findings include: R2's progress note, dated 1/2/26, identified R2 admitted to the nursing home from the hospital. R2 was an assistance of two staff with an EZ Stand for transfers and was non-weight bearing (NWB) to her right upper extremity with a sling on at all times. R2 was recorded as not verbally responding and having poor memory due to dementia. R2's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 1/2/26, identified R2 had sustained a fall within the last three months, had altered mental status, impaired mobility, and consumed at-risk medications. The assessment…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · G2023-11-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to identify and implement interventions to prevent new pressure ulcer (PU) development for 1 of 1 resident (R61) who was at risk for PU upon admission. This caused actual harm when the facility failed to identify interventions to prevent new PU's to R61's heels and hip. Findings include: R61's: 1) 7/6/23, admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R61's cognition was severely impaired. R61 was dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. R61 was identified as at risk for pressure ulcer (PU) development with no pressure ulcers present at that time. R61 had no venous or arterial ulcers, however, did have a skin tear. R61's skin and ulcer treatment included application of a nonsurgical dressing other than on their feet and application of ointment/medication other than on their feet. R61's diagnosis included atrial fibrillation, arthritis, osteoporosis, heart failure, hypertension, dementia, malnutrition or 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-12-03 · tag F0868 — widespread
    Have the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
    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 its Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program provided supervision for 1 of 1 infection preventionist (IP), to identify a thorough infection control surveillance program included surveillance of all employee illness. QAPI also failed to ensure employee surveillance was appropriately delegated to personnel in employee health (EH) who were not certified in infection control. This had the potential to affect all 74 residents. Refer to F880 and F882Findings include: Review of the current, facilities infection control surveillance for employees identified the facility utilized corporate employee health to track employee illness. The IP failed to have any oversight for employee illness and relied on corporate employee health (EH) to provide facility employee surveillance. There was no documentation to support the IP was made aware by EH daily of staff call-ins, had oversight to ensure staff would remain out of work, used that daily data to correlated staff illness to potential resident illness, and ensure…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to have a current, ongoing system of surveillance for preventing, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and communicable diseases that included all staff. This had the potential to affect all 74 residents. Refer to F882 and F868 Findings include: Review of facility infection control surveillance identified only resident illness surveillance had been completed at the facility. Interview on 12/2/25 at 4:10 p.m., with the infection preventionist (IP) identified employee's call central employee health (EH) when ill to report their symptoms, EH then provides the employee general guidelines of when they can return to work. The manager will get a call that the staff called in ill and when they can return to work based on the employee's illness. If employee heath identified a trend in employee illness, then EH would reach out to notify her so she could compare with the facility residents to see if there was any correlation. She revealed that she did not keep a record of employee illness only EH had that…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-12-03 · tag F0882 — widespread
    Designate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
    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 1 of 1 infection preventionist (IP) had appropriate oversight of the infection control (IC) program that included employee surveillance of all employees. This had the potential to affect all 74 residents. Refer to F880 and F868 Findings include: Review of facility infection control surveillance identified only resident illness surveillance had been completed at the facility. Employee surveillance had not been included. Interview on 12/2/25 at 4:10 p.m., with the infection preventionist (IP) identified employee's call central employee health (EH) when ill to report their symptoms, EH then provides the employee general guidelines of when they can return to work. The manager will get a call that the staff called in ill and when they can return to work based on the employee's illness. If employee heath identified a trend in employee illness, then EH would reach out to notify her so she could compare with the facility residents to see if there was any correlation. She revealed that she did not keep a record of employee…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-10-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide 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 R32 R32's October 2024, Medication Administration Record (MAR) identified R32 was to be administered erythromycin 0.5% ophthalmic eye ointment. Observation and interview on 10/30/24 at 8:12 a.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A during medication administration identified she put on gloves (donned) gloves, opened the drawer of the medication cart, removed R32's blister packs of medication, and placed them into a medication cup. With her gloved hands, LPN-A placed the blister packs into the drawer, opened another drawer and took out a tube that contained erythromycin (antibiotic) eye ointment. LPN-A then closed the drawer, locked the medication cart, and walked down to R32's room. LPN-A knocked on the door, opened it, sat the medication on the overbed table, and administered the eye ointment. LPN-A did not wash hands or change gloves prior to administering eye ointment after touching other surfaces. LPN-A agreed with the above findings and identified she should have removed her old gloves, washed her hands…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-10-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control technique was followed during 1 of 1 meal service. This had the potential to affect all 20 residents residing on the Gardens unit. Findings include: Observation on 10/28/24 of the supper meal served on the Gardens unit identified at: 1) 5:30 p.m., it was noted The meal being served by cook-A. During serving of the meal, cook-A demonstrated multiple incidents of potential cross-contamination and lack of appropriate hand hygiene as he plated the meal for residents. Cook-A was noted to have facial hair that was uncovered as he was dishing food items from the steam table and moving about the kitchenette, obtaining various food items and placing them onto plates. 2) 5:32 p.m., cook-A returned to the steam table wearing the same gloves with which he had opened cabinets to retrieve serving items, and opened the refrigerator and freezer doors to obtain items to place onto trays. Upon returning to the steam…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-30 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide 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

    Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was provided to 1 of 1 resident (R21) prior to mealtime and during morning cares and required staff assistance. Findings include: R21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) identified R21's cognition was severely impaired, she had continuous inattention and disorganized thinking present. She required set up assistance with eating and was dependent on staff for all other cares. R21 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. R21 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, and depression. R21's 5/10/24, care plan identified she had difficulty making needs known and she was rarely understood. She has a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and and Vascular dementia. R21 required her food to be cut up and she needed staff assistance. The nurtion assessment noted resident should not have silverware. Interview on 10/28/24 at 4:21 p.m., with family member (FM)-D identified there were concerns R21 was not getting her fingernails trimmed. FM-D states that R21 ate with her hands and at times had…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-11-30 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespread
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and document review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to have evidence of a Performance Improvement Project (PIP) which identified facility specific high risk or problem-prone areas, develop an action plan to correct the identified areas of concern, and to ensure the committee participated in the development and oversight of the systems. This had the potential to affect the quality of care and quality of life for all 72 residents in the facility. Findings include: Interview and record review of minutes with the Quality Assurance (QA) coordinator, for the last 3 quarters; March 16, 2023; April 20, 2023; May 18, 2023, June 15, 2023, July 20, 2023; September 21, 2023, and October 19, 2023, identified the facility had failed to identify facility specific problems or areas of concern, develop action plans, and implement systems with documented QAPI committee oversight. Interview on 11/28/23 at 2:15 p.m., with the QA coordinator reported QA education is provided to all staff annually by online education 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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-11-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the hot steam table was separated from the resident's area in 1 of 3 kitchenettes observed (Gardens resident dining area) placing residents at risk for potential burns. Findings include: Review of current resident's roster residing in the Gardens wing of the facility identified 19 resident total, with 14 residents identified with cognitive impairment and 2 at risk for wandering with Wander Guard devices in place. Observation on 11/27/23 at 12/21 p.m., in the Gardens kitchenette dining area identified a steam table used to hold food at a hot holding temperature while serving residents was against the wall. The steam table and surrounding area lacked any barrier between it and the residents. Observation on 11/27/23, at 12:44 p.m., dietary aid (DA)-A shut off steam table and left area, no other staff were present. Steam table remained very hot to touch. The Garden's dining area was open to resident common areas lacking any barrier or door to ensure resident could not wander into the area. Interview 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-11-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure the steam table where resident meals were served had a sneeze guard to protect food from being contaminated by nearby staff. This had the potential to effect all 12 residents who ate in the Gardens dining area. Findings include: Observation on 11/27/23 at 12:21 p.m., in the Garden dining area identified a steam table against the wall. The steam table lacked a sneeze guard to help reduce the risk of contamination from nearby staff or residents, and there was no separation device used to keep staff or residents any distance away. Dietary aide (DA)-A was observed facing the steam table and dishing food onto plates and placing on a cart, either he or a nursing assistant would take the cart and pass to the residents. Other staff were observed standing near the steam table while DA-A was dishing food. Interview on 11/29/23 at 1:57 p.m., with administrator identified he was not aware that they needed a sneeze guard but agreed that this could pose a risk for contamination. He identified that going forward they would ensure 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-11-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to follow manufacture's instructions for cleaning and disinfecting 2 of 2 Master Care Air Jetted tubs located on the First floor. This had the potential to affect 24 of 34 residents, ( R1, R3, R4, R5, R8, R11, R12, R13, R15, R17, R18, R21, R23, R24, R27, R33, R35, R36, R37, R41, R46, R47, R51, and R60) who utilized the two tubs. The facility also failed to ensure staff followed policy and procedure for donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) following use with a resident who was on precautions and failed to sanitize a Hoyer lift following use with a resident on contact precautions. Findings include: WHIRLPOOL TUB Observation and interview on 11/29/23 at 10:44 a.m., with trained medication aid (TMA)-D who performed cleaning and disinfection the Master Care Aire Jet tub following completion of a resident bath. TMA-D reported she had completed her last bath for the day and would complete the cleaning and disinfection process. She then pointed to the instruction sheet posted on the side of the mirror…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-11-30 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — pattern
    Implement 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 perform antibiotic stewardship to include antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic usage and determine if the prescribed antibiotics resolved the identified infectious process for 22 of 72 sampled residents (R2, R6, R7, R10, R11, R13, R21, R22, R28, R36, R37, R38, R43, R47, R53, R61, R167, R267, R268, R269, R270, and R271) identified in the facility's infection control surveillance. This had the potential to affect all 72 residents who were or may receive antibiotic therapy in the future. Findings include: Review of the September, October, and November 2023 infection control (IC) surveillance identified for the month of: 1). September 2023, 8 residents were receiving antibiotic treatment (R10, R13, R22, R167, R268, R269, R270 and R271). R167 was identified as receiving an antibiotic but there was no additional information included. There was no indication staff had re-assessed the resident's following completion of the therapy or notified their physicians to identify if symptoms had resolved or there…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure 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) assessment accurately reflected the status and needs for 1 of 1 resident (R48) reviewed for elopement. Findings include: R48's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and had a Wander Guard elopement bracelet to be used daily. The MDS further indicated diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease. R48's face sheet printed 11/30/23, included diagnoses of dementia with Lewy bodies (abnormal deposits of a protein in the brain causing sleep, behavior, cognition, and movement disorders) and psychotic disorder with delusions and hallucinations. R48's care plan dated 5/25/22, indicated R48 had a problem for elopement and was at risk for elopement related to dementia and ability to ambulate independently. R28 was not at risk for elopement at that time, which was also dated 5/25/22 with status of active and frequency listed as PRN (as needed). R48's elopement…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolated
    Provide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
    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 resident cardiopulmonary Resuscitation(CPR) orders were consistent throughout the medical record for 1 of 16 residents reviewed (R3) and ensure staff were knowledgeable as to where to identify documents in order to prevent discrepancies. Findings include: R3's current, [DATE], physician orders identified on [DATE], an order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) was entered. R3's current, undated face sheet also reflected the DNR status. R3's current, undated care plan identified R3 was a DNR as of [DATE]. R3's current, Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) identified he was to receive CPR in an emergency. Interview on [DATE] at 3:57 p.m., with registered nurse (RN)-C, identified if R3's heart stopped she would start CPR because I know from memory, .he is a full code (CPR). RN-C reviewed chart and identified R3 is a DNR. RN-C then looked at the signed POLST and identified it said he was to have CPR. Interview on [DATE] 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide 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 ensure 1 of 1 resident (R16) received assistance with hand splints to prevent worsening of contractures. Findings include: R16's Diagnosis Report printed 11/29/23, included diagnosis of vascular dementia (problems in the blood supply to the brain leading to tissue death), and rheumatoid arthritis (chronic inflammatory disease that affects the joints). R16's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R16 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS further identified R16 required partial to moderate assist with transfers, and was dependent on staff for toileting and dressing. The MDS also included functional limitation of range of motion with impairment on one side upper extremities. R16's care plan dated 1/2/20, indicated R16 requires assistance with most of her activities of daily living and uses adaptive equipment. Interventions included R16 is to wear 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$17,345 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

  • $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-09-24
  • Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-01-04 for 6 days

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 AVERA HEALTH — 13 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 53.7-0.7 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 53.5-1.5 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.3+0.7 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.1-0.1 vs chain
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
AVERA HEALTHOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 11/01/2009
HENNEN, SHARONIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2023
KOENEN, LAVONNEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2020
LORANG, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2024
LOUWAGIE, CURTISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2018
NOVAK, KARIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2024
O'LEARY, TIMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2023
SIELING, AMANDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2018
VROMAN, JILLIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2023
ZIMMERMAN, JODELLEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2018
COUDRON, CHRISTYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/01/2020
LAUTT, JULIEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/01/2020
STREIER, DEBRAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/01/2021
DEUTZ, TRACYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/14/2024
WALKER, VICTORIAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/09/2026

CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

What families pay in MN

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Minnesota Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Minnesota
$10,646/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$13,870/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,573/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 245228. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-03, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next