Cura Of Melrose
101 5th Avenue NW, Melrose, MN 56352 · Non profit - Corporation · 75 certified beds · (320) 256-4474 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings 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 (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $49,585 in federal fines (most recent 2026-07-08)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 1 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 | 20.0% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.6% | 4.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 2.6% | 2.0% | better |
| 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 | 5.0% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.4% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.8% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.2% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.9% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.9% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.2% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.7% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.5% | 82.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.3% | 23.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.5% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.88 | 1.61 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.42 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 11% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 4.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 75 beds and averages 63.2 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.02 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.85 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.18 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-05-14 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 protect 2 of 2 residents (R2 and R1) from abuse. Staff used a personal cell phone to take a picture of R2's soiled brief, buttocks, and large bowel movement and the picture was sent to several other facility staff. This resulted in actual harm to R2 as she verbalized not trusting facility staff and was fearful to have a bowel movement. R1 was abused when staff used their personal cell phone to record R1's voice as she was repeatedly stating, help me, help me. The video was sent to several facility staff phones with the caption, I want to kill myself. The facility implemented corrective action, and the deficient practice was corrected on 5/08/26, prior to the survey, and was issued at past non-compliance. Findings include: R2 R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R2 had hemiplegia (muscular weakness) or hemiparesis (involving severe or total paralysis), anxiety disorder and depression. R2's MDS further indicated C2 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-01-14 · 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 protect 1 of 4 residents (R1) from avoidable accidents when care plan interventions were not implemented. This resulted in actual harm to R1 who fell out of a recliner and sustained a large hematoma (a solid swelling of clotted blood) and laceration to the front of her head.Findings include: R1's admission Record indicated she admitted to the facility 8/26/24. R1's diagnosis included dementia, depression, overactive bladder and osteoporosis. R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and indicated she required substantial to maximal assistance for transfers and toileting. R1's care plan revised 12/19/25, identified a potential for injury related to a history of falls. Interventions included: signage in room, appropriate footwear and grip strips in room. The care plan identified a potential for injury related to a history of electric recliner use. The care plan indicated R1 sustained a fall from a lift…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-12-04 · 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 ensure the care plan was followed during staff assisted transfer for 1 of 3 residents (R1), who fell while being transferred. This resulted in actual harm when R1 sustained a fracture. Due to actions taken by the facility, following the fall, this is being issued at past non-compliance.Findings include:R1's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia with psychotic disturbance, age related osteoporosis, and R1 had moderately impaired cognition.R1's care plan revised on 12/1/25, indicated R1 had a self care deficit related to impaired mobility, Alzheimer's disease, depression, and a change in condition related to unknown etiology. R1's care plan identified R1 was non-ambulatory and required assist of one staff utilizing an EZ (brand of mechanical lift) stand for transfers as of 8/29/25. R1's care plan was revised on 12/1/25, identified R1 now…
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.
- Actual harm · G2025-07-29 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 provide care consistent with professional standard of practice to prevent worsening of pressure ulcer identified on 6/20/25 for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed when the facility failed to provide appropriate assessment and treatment. This resulted in actual harm to R1 when she was identified with stage 3 pressure ulcer at coccyx area during admission at the hospital on 7/15/25. Findings include: According to the State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, revision 229, issued 4/25/25 a pressure ulcer and stage 3 pressure ulcer is defined as Pressure Ulcer/Injury (PU/PI) refers to localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. A pressure injury will present as intact skin and may be painful. A pressure ulcer will present as an open ulcer, the appearance of which will vary depending on the stage and may be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · 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 The facility failed to implement care planned interventions to reduce the risk for burns for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (R4) who spilled hot coffee on herself.R4's admission Record indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included parkinsonism, depression, anxiety and dementia. R4's care plan dated 12/11/25 identified intact cognition and indicated she was able to eat independently. The care plan identified a risk for altered nutritional status and directed staff to provide covered mugs for hot liquids outside the dining room. R4's Hot Liquid Safety Evaluation dated 9/19/25, indicated temperature of liquid not to exceed 180 degrees. The evaluation indicated R4 had an isolated event on 9/16/2025, follow up completed on 9/17/2025. Standard temperature of hot liquid supplied by facility was less than 180 degrees. No additional interventions indicated at this time, see progress note on 9/17/25. R4's Progress Notes indicated the following: 9/17/25, Discussed with R4 the coffee spill from 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 · D2025-12-04 · 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 submit a report with sufficient information to describe the alleged violation to the State Agency (SA) without omitting information or misleading information to make the incident appear less serious than it was for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed. Findings include:R1's significant change Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia with psychotic disturbance, age related osteoporosis. R1 had moderately impaired cognition.R1's care plan revised on 12/1/25, indicated R1 had a selfcare deficit related to impaired mobility, Alzheimer's disease, depression, and a change in condition related to unknown etiology. R1's care plan identified R1 was non-ambulatory and required assist of one staff utilizing an EZ (brand of mechanical lift) stand for transfers as of 8/29/25. R1's care plan was revised on 12/1/25, identified R1 now required an EZ lift (full body mechanical lift) with assist 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 · D2025-09-11 · 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 notify the Ombudsman of transfers and discharges for 1 of 3 residents (R6) reviewed for hospitalizations. Findings include: R6's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R6 was cognitively intact and had the following diagnoses: heart failure, hypertension, end stage renal failure and diabetes mellitus. R6's progress notes printed 9/11/25, indicated R6 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 5/5/25, with sepsis related pneumonia. Facility Ombudsman notification lacked evidence of R6's hospitalization in neither the April or May 2025 Ombudsman notifications. During interview on 09/10/2025 at 11:09 a.m., Director of Nursing (DON) stated the social worker was responsible for notifications to the Ombudsman for all hospitalizations, transfers and discharges. DON stated she was unsure of the social workers process as to when notifications were sent. DON then confirmed the Ombudsman notification list provided by facility did not include R6'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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 document review and interview the facility failed to ensure monthly pharmacy reviews were accurately completed and included review of hospital discharge orders for 1 of 3 residents (R6) reviewed for hospitalizations.Findings include:R6's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R6 was cognitively intact and had the following diagnoses: heart failure, hypertension, end stage renal failure, diabetes mellitus, and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation.R6's progress note dated 4/29/25, indicated R6 was emergently transferred to the hospital and was subsequently admitted with sepsis. R6 returned to the facility on 5/5/25.R6's discharge transfer paperwork dated 5/5/25, indicated the following orders: Atorvastatin 40 mg-Wait to take this until May 6th morning; Linaclotide 145 mcg cap-wait to take this until May 6th morning.During interview on 09/09/2025 at 9:33 a.m., Consulting Pharmacist (CP) stated she was familiar with R6's hospitalization on 4/29/25 through 5/5/25. She stated she…
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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain safe storage of medications on 1 of 3 medication carts when medication cart was left unlocked. Findings include:On 9/9/25 at 7:55 a.m., medication cart in common area of 100's unit was observed unlocked and unsupervised. Medication cart was placed outside of dining room, across from the unattended nurse's station.At 8:01 a.m., a staff person walked by cart to place something in the unattended nurses station. A second staff person walked past the unlocked medication cart. Neither attempt to lock the cart.At 8:04 a.m., a staff person with a laundry cart walked past the unlocked medication cart.At 8:05 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-C pushed a resident in a wheelchair past the unlocked medication cart.At 8:06 a.m., director of nursing (DON) walked past unlocked medication cart, but did not observe unlocked cart. RN-C walked past unlocked medication cart with supplies.At 8:07 a.m., housekeeping staff person walked past unlocked cart. RN-C walked past unlocked medication cart, noticed it was unlocked, and stopped to lock it…
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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 interview and record review the facility failed to maintain a complete, accurately documented, and readily accessible medical record in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice for 1of 24 residents (R1) reviewed for advanced directives documentation. This deficient practice gave staff access to inaccurate information. Findings include:R1's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R1 admitted to the facility 3/13/25 and had the following diagnoses: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, arthritis, respiratory failure and depression.Review of R1's electronic medical record (EMR) on 9/7/25 indicated the code status as DNR, and current orders indicated DNR. However, the Advance Directive link in R1's EMR revealed an outdated advanced directive which indicated FULL CODE.A progress note titled Communication with Physician dated 7/28/25, indicated during hospitalization R1's code status was changed to Do Not Resuscitate, and the change was verified with R1's spouse. The note indicated…
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 before2025-09-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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, interview, and document review, the facility failed to properly disinfect shared equipment between use for 1 of 2 glucometers (medical device used to check blood sugar levels) reviewed for infection control. Findings include:R126's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses of diabetes mellitus (a disease where the body either does not produce enough insulin or not use insulin effectively) and dementia (memory loss).During observation and interview on 9/9/25 at 7:07 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-C completed a blood sugar check using a shared glucometer on R126 in R126's room. RN-C brought the shared glucometer back to the medication cart and used a Sani-Cloth germicidal disposable wipe on the glucometer for approximately 10 to 15 seconds. RN-C replaced the glucometer into the medication cart. RN-C confirmed she wiped the glucometer down for approximately 5 to 10 seconds and was dry soon after. RN-C checked the label and stated 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 · D2025-07-29 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to provide timely notification for change in condition to the physician for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: R1's admission Record dated 3/27/24 indicated R1's diagnoses included intervertebral disc degeneration, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, history of diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, sepsis due to Escherichia coli, and post-traumatic stress disorder. R1's care plan dated 3/27/24, indicated R1 had intact cognition and was at risk for skin breakdown related to pressure due to incontinence, inactivity, immobility, and problem with friction and shearing with staff interventions to inspect skin with care, to evaluate and notify the provider and the family immediately of any new area of skin breakdown. R1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R1 is at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The MDS also indicated R1 required extensive assistance with activities of daily living…
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 before2025-04-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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, interview, and document review the facility failed to implement adequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene during direct care services for 1 of 1 resident (R3) who required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) with an indwelling device and open wound with a dressing change. Findings include: R3's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderately impaired cognition. He required substantial/maximum assistance with toilet hygiene, shower/bathe, personal hygiene, sit to stand, toilet and chair/bed to chair transfers, dependent for lower body dressing, and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. He had a suprapubic (a device inserted a couple inches below the naval/belly button, directly into the bladder) urinary catheter and always continent of bowel. Diagnoses included benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (enlargement of the prostate), neurogenic bladder (lack of bladder control due to brain, spinal cord, or nerve problems, osteoporosis (bone loss),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-29 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide a reasonable call light response time for 4 of 4 (R27, R13, R36, R10) residents reviewed for dignity. Findings include: R27's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R27 was cognitively intact, and had the following diagnoses: anemia, HLD, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). R13's significant change MDS dated [DATE], indicated R13 was cognitively intact and had the following diagnoses: anemia (low blood count), atrial fibrillation (AFIB) (top two chambers of the heart beat irregularly), HTN, congestive heart failure (CHF) (heart does not pump blood efficiently), renal insufficiency (kidneys filter the blood ineffectively), HLD, and hyponatremia (low sodium levels in the body), and arthritis. R36's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated R36 was cognitively intact and had the following diagnoses: cerebral vascular accident (CVA) (stroke), anemia, coronary artery disease (CAD) (hardening of the cardiac arteries), benign prostatic…
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 · D2024-08-29 · 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 implement interventions to prevent further development of decreased range of motion and ability for 2 of 2 residents (R29, R53) reviewed for positioning and mobility. Findings include: R29's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], included diagnosis of stroke, arthritis, and hemiplegia or hemiparesis (weakness or inability to move one side of your body). R29's annual MDS included he had limited range of motion on one side of his upper body. On 8/27/24 at 11:39 a.m., R29 was positioned by staff at a table in the dining room. Right arm was noted to be on his lap with right hand curled inward. R29's care plan dated 8/2/24, included a restorative nursing intervention of passive range of motion for right upper and lower extremities which included passive stretching and extensions of the right fingers and thumb. R29's occupational therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE], included discharge recommendations for passive range of motion 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 · D2023-08-10 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 inform a responsible party in advance of the risks/benefits and receive informed consent of proposed care for 2 of 5 residents (R16, R19) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: R16's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses of unspecified dementia, mood disturbance, and anxiety. R16's last signed physician orders dated 7/18/23 indicated Ativan (an antianxiety medication) 0.5mg by mouth two times a day related to Anxiety and Venlafaxine HCI (an antidepressant medication) 50mg by mouth two times a day related to Major Depressive Disorder initiated 10/27/2021. However, the record lacked evidence of an Informed Consent for required Medications indicating possible risks/side effects was provided to the responsible party for Ativan and Venlafaxine HCI. R19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition and diagnoses of dementia, hallucinations…
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
$49,585 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $22,900 — penalty dated 2026-07-08
- $26,685 — penalty dated 2025-12-04
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-08-30 for 76 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 CURA — 8 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 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CURA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/23/2024 |
| DIRKES, MARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2024 |
| OPATZ, TOM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2024 |
| STRUZYK, FRED | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2024 |
| TF MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/31/2024 |
| HELLER, PATRICK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/11/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.
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 245396. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-11, 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.