Eventide Lutheran Home
1405 7th Street South, Moorhead, MN 56560 · Non profit - Corporation · 145 certified beds · (218) 233-7508 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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 3 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 (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $24,128 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-30)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 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 | 26.2% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.1% | 4.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 1.9% | 0.9% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.8% | 4.1% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.7% | 4.0% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.0% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.5% | 12.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.7% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.4% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.2% | 17.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.9% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 82.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.8% | 23.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.85 | 1.90 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
33.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 173 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 69.4% 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 98 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 37% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 33.3%CMS range 27.4–38.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.5%CMS range 6.9–13.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 69.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 59.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 61.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 95.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 3.2% | 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 | 5.3%CMS range 3.0–8.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 145 beds and averages 112.6 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 32 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 4.88 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.44 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 4.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.02 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-04-30 · 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 adequate supervision for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for accidents. This failure resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) when R1 eloped from the facility, and was found 5 hours later, approximately 4 miles from the facility, after dark. The IJ began on 4/16/25 at 6:27 p.m., when R1 exited an alarmed door at the facility and staff failed to respond timely and complete a full property search for R1. R1 was located by the police approximately four miles from the facility at 12:00 a.m. Director of quality and infection prevention and director of clinical services were notified of the IJ at 5:15 p.m. on 4/30/25. The facility implemented corrective action by 4/22/25, prior to the start of the survey and therefore is issued as past non-compliance. Findings include: R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderately impaired cognition. He required partial to moderate assistance with shower/bathe, set up/cleanup for…
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 before2026-06-24 · 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 provide care consistent with a resident's needs and care plan to eliminate/reduce the risk of an accident in bed for 1 of 1 residents (R1). This resulted in actual harm to R1 when she rolled out of bed onto the floor. R1's fall mat was not alongside the bed and her call light was not within reach. As a result, R1 was transported to the emergency department (ED) on 6/12/26, for a laceration to the forehead and a fracture to her right clavicle. The facility had implemented actions to prevent recurrence prior to the survey on 6/23/26, therefore, the citation was issued at past non-compliance. Additionally, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and secure transportation for R2 who has severe cognitive impairment.Findings include:R1R1's annual minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 was cognitively intact. R1 was dependent on staff for toileting, bed mobility, and transferring. R1 had anxiety, pain and a history 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-03-12 · 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 follow care planned interventions to ensure resident's safety for 1 of 3 residents (R1) who had a history of falls. This resulted in actual harm for R1 when he fell from the wheelchair, was sent to the emergency department (ED) and sustained a left humerus fracture. The facility implemented corrective action prior to the survey so the deficient practice was issued at past non-compliance. Findings include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had moderately impaired cognition with diagnoses of type two diabetes, dementia, anxiety and depression. Identified R1 required extensive assistance with activities of daily (ADL's) including transfers, bed mobility and toilet use. R1's care plan undated, identified R1 had a potential for falls related to history of frequent falls, impaired mobility, unsteady gait, diabetes, acute encephalopathy, and dementia. Identified R1 had a closed three-part fracture of left…
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 before2024-12-10 · 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 a safe transfer using a full body mechanical lift for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for accidents. This resulted in harm for R1 when she fell from the lift during a transfer, sustained a laceration to the back of her scalp and contusion (a bruise caused by blood vessels under the skin that break and bleed due to an injury such as a blow or impact) of the sacrum (a bone that connects the lumbar spine and the pelvis). R1 was sent to the emergency department (ED) and required four staples to the scalp. The facility implemented corrective action prior to the survey so the deficient practice was issued at past non-compliance. Findings include: Volaro Series 4 Lift Operators Manual dated 3/2019, identified the Volaro lift was designed for patient transfer only. Make sure all four loops from the sling are properly nested in the bottom of the hooks before lifting or transferring a resident and all four retainer springs are functioning…
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 before2023-09-15 · 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 interventions were implemented to reduce the fall risk for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for accidents. This deficient practice caused actual harm when R2 fell and sustained a left fractured patella (knee cap). Findings include: R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition with no behaviors, extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. R2 was not on a toileting program, had frequent bladder incontinence and continent of bowel. R2 received anticoagulants and antidepressants 7 out of the 7 days during the look back period. R2 had three falls since admission, one without injury and two with minor injuries. R2's diagnoses dated 9/15/23, identified spinal stenosis (narrowing) lumbar region with neurogenic claudication (nerves get pinched within the center of the lumbar spine, causing intermittent leg pain), radiculopathy (injury or damage…
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 · D2026-06-24 · 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 report an incident of neglect of care with serious bodily injury was reported within 2 hours of the State Agency (SA) for 1 of 1 residents (R1) who fell out of bed and sustained a fractured clavicle along with a laceration when staff were not following the care plan.Findings include:R1's annual minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 was cognitively intact. and was dependent on staff for toileting, bed mobility, and transferring. R1 had anxiety, pain and a history of falls with fractures.R1's care plan revised 6/13/26, identified R1 had a potential for falls related to decreased mobility, a history of falls, and weakness. R1 was alert and orientated to person, place and time. R1's care planned interventions included low bed with fall mat to the floor when R1 was in bed and soft touch call light at the hip to promote use.R1's fall risk predictive factors assessment dated [DATE], indicated R1 had poor recall, judgment, and safety awareness.…
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 · D2025-11-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation and document review, the facility failed to ensure orders were followed as prescribed by the physician for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for post-op care after a right great toe amputation. R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified severely impaired cognition with physical behavioral symptoms towards others (hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching, grabbing) and verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others (screaming, threatening others and cursing). Medical diagnoses included: non-traumatic brain dysfunction, peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (a circulation disorder where blood vessels outside the heart become narrowed, blocked, and can cause pain, cramping, numbness, and poor wound healing), diabetes mellitus (DM), and Alzheimer's. R1's care plan dated 11/12/25, identified a potential for skin breakdown related to dementia, urinary incontinence, history of stage 2 pressure ulcer to right buttock and seborrheic dermatitis, right great toe…
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 · D2025-06-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for 1 of 1 residents (R4) who received assistance with eating in the dining room. Findings include: R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R4 had severe cognitive impairment and had diagnoses which included: hypertension (elevated blood pressure), dementia, and anemia. Identified R4 required staff assistance to eat. R4's care plan dated 11/9/22, identified R4 had self-care performance deficit related to weakness and dementia. R4's interventions included assistance with hygiene, bathing and dressing. Identified R4 required total staff assistance with eating. Identified R4 had a terminal prognosis and received hospice care. During an observation on 6/24/25 at 12:35 p.m., R4 sat in a reclining wheelchair in the dining room at a table. Hospice registered nurse (H-RN) stood near R4's right side, and provided R4 with food from a spoon. -at 12:43 H-RN continued to stand near R4'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 · D2025-06-25 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 nebulizer medications were administered safely for 1 of 1 residents (R5) who were observed to self-administer a nebulizer and had not been assessed as safe to self-administer medications. Findings include: R5's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R5 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses which included pneumonia, hip fracture, and respiratory failure. R5 was dependent on staff for transfers and toileting hygiene. R5's care plan dated 5/30/25, identified R5 as having an activity of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to a fracture of the right ankle. R5's care plan interventions included assistance with dressing and grooming and being able to feed self after staff assisted with tray set up. Review of the care plan dated 5/30/25, lacked information regarding the self-administration of medications. Review of R5' s electronic health record (EHR) revealed Formoterol Fumarate inhalation…
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 · D2025-06-25 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (R95) had adequate hydration within reach. Findings include: R95's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R95 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, indicating severe cognitive impairment. R95 required partial assistance with eating and extensive assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. R95 had a diagnosis of cerebral infection (stroke), hemiparesis (weakness of one side of the body), anxiety, and depression. R95's care plan was revised on 3/12/25, indicating that R95 could feed herself after staff assisted with tray setup. Staff to encourage R95 to use her right hand to feed herself, and place the tray in the far-right visual felid. Dysphasia mechanically altered with nectar thick liquids, on 4/3/25 per speech therapy changed to pureed with nectar thick liquids with hopes of improving intakes. Dislikes strawberries. The family prefers that R95 be given cranberry juice…
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 · D2025-06-25 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility failed to honor a resident's right to make choices about food choices at meals for 1 of 1 residents (R95) reviewed for choices. Findings include: R95's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R95 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, indicating severe cognitive impairment. R95 required partial assistance with eating and extensive assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. R95 had diagnoses of cerebral infection (stroke), hemiparesis (weakness of one side of the body), anxiety, and depression. R95's care plan revised on 3/12/25, indicated R95 could feed herself after staff assisted with tray setup. Staff to encourage R95 to use her right hand to feed herself and place the tray in the far-right visual felid. R95's diet was changed on 4/3/25, per speech therapy to pureed (smooth blended foods) with nectar thick liquids with hopes of improving intakes. The family preferred that R95 be given cranberry juice to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-25 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) using the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process, following the initiation of hospice services for 1 of 1 resident (R117) reviewed for hospice. Findings include: R117's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R117 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and traumatic brain injury. Identified R117 required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. R117's progress notes dated 3/31/25 to 5/19/25, identified R117 was admitted to Ethos Hospice on 4/28/25. R117's electronic medical record (EMR) identified a quarterly MDS was completed on 2/28/25, and a death MDS was completed on 5/19/25. R117 EMR lacked a significant changed MDS was completed when R117 was admitted to hospice. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:11 a.m., MDS coordinator confirmed R117…
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 · D2025-06-25 · 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 ensure a pressure relieving device was implemented to prevent skin breakdown for 1 of 3 residents (R22) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: R22's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R22 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body), aphasia (disorder that affects the ability to communicate), and Parkinson's Disease. Identified R22 required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Identified R22 was at risk for pressure ulcers. R22's annual Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 10/19/24, identified R22 required total assistance from staff with repositioning and was at risk for skin breakdown. Identified R22 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. R22's care plan dated 10/14/2016, identified R22 had self care deficits and was at risk for skin breakdown related to stroke and…
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 before2025-04-02 · 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 ensure appropriate hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) practices were performed during a high contact care activity for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R5) in enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) with an indwelling device. Findings include: Primary provider visit dated 2/4/25 at 8:00 p.m. identified assessment/plan: neurogenic bladder - continue with suprapubic catheter (a flexible tube placed through an incision in the abdomen instead of from the urethra to empty urine from the bladder into a collection bag) (SP), Mirabegron 25 milligrams (mg) (medication for bladder spasms). Nursing was responsible for catheter cares. No recent urinary tract infection (UTI) concerns. R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition without behaviors. She had upper impairment on one side, lower impairment on both sides and used a wheelchair for mobility. She required partial/moderate assistance with upper body dressing,…
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 · F2024-04-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food and beverages stored in the refrigerators and freezers were labeled, dated and discarded properly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 116 residents who received food and beverages from the refrigerators and freezers. Findings include : On 4/8/24 at 11:30 a.m., during the initial tour of the kitchen area with the culinary coordinator (CC), the following concerns were identified: Walk in produce cooler: -nine hard boiled eggs were in a Ziploc bag without a notation of a date. -1/2 large container of enchilada sauce with crusty black flakes around the lid with an open date of 1/1/24. -1/2 bottle of mustard with yellow crusty flakes around the lid and an open date of 10/3/23. -1/4 bag of whipped topping with no notation of an open date. Walk in egg and dairy cooler: -20 hard boiled eggs were in a Ziploc bag without a notation of a date. -1/4 bottle cherries with an open date of 1/16/24. -one open block of butter with no notation of an open date. -15 pieces of summer sausage in a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-10 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 maintain wheelchairs in a clean and sanitary manner for 1 of residents (R68) reviewed who utilized wheelchairs. In addition, the facility failed to maintain a standing lift shared by residents in a clean and sanitary manner. Findings include: R68's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R68 had moderate cognitive impairment and had diagnosis which included hypertension (elevated blood pressure), non traumatic brain dysfunction and arthritis. Identified R68 required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Further identified R68 utilized a manual wheelchair for mobility. During an observation on 4/9/24 at 9:29 a.m., R68 was seated in his wheelchair at the nurses' station and the left foot pedal of his wheelchair contained a large dried brown food like substance of which covered half of the foot pedal. During an observation on 4/10/24 at 7:40 a.m., R68…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-10 · 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 ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to prevent and/or minimize further spread of COVID-19 for 2 of 3 residents (R45 and R59) reviewed for transmission based precautions. In addition, the facility failed to ensure catheter drainage bags were not placed on the floor for 1 of 1 residents (R62) reviewed for catheters. Findings include: Review of CDC guidance dated 3/18/24, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic indicated health care providers who entered the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should adhere to Standard Precautions and use a NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health) approved particulate respirator with N95 filters or higher (an N95 respirator is a respiratory protective device designed 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.
“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
$24,128 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $14,508 — penalty dated 2025-04-30
- $9,620 — penalty dated 2025-03-12
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BOCK, JODEE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/15/2022 |
| BRANDT, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/15/2022 |
| BYE, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/15/2022 |
| FISCHBACH, TYLER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/15/2022 |
| GULBRANSON, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/15/2022 |
| JOHNSON, VIKKI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/01/2023 |
| LARSON-CASSELTON, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/15/2022 |
| LEE, JUDITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/15/2022 |
| LUNAK, BRANDON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/01/2026 |
| SCHAFER, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/10/2024 |
| SELJEVOLD, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2009 |
| SWENSON, KARLA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/15/2022 |
| RIEWER, JON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/31/2003 |
| BLUE STONE THERAPY INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/29/2025 |
| ANDERSON, KELSEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/10/2021 |
| BERG, BRITTNI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/25/2022 |
| HAGER, JIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2022 |
| HARMS, KALEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/28/2018 |
| KELLY, KAYLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/26/2023 |
| KOLLAR, EMILY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/21/2025 |
| OAKES, KARA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/17/2024 |
| OHE, DARIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/18/2018 |
| SAND, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Minnesota Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 245461. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-08, 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.