Moose Lake Village
710 South Kenwood Avenue, Moose Lake, MN 55767 · Non profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (218) 351-9400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 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 | 23.1% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 4.1% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.0% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 35.5% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.5% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 12.0% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.5% | 24.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.9% | 17.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.8% | 82.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.2% | 23.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.0% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
51.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 43 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.6% 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 53 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 38% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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 | 51.4%CMS range 38.3–65.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 7.8–17.5 | 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 | 56.6% | 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 | 52.8% | 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 | 37.7% | 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 | 97.1% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.4% | 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 | 1.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.9%CMS range 3.2–13.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 60 beds and averages 53.1 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.23 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 4.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.84 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-07-09 · 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 minimum dishwasher temperatures were attained during the rinse cycle for 1 of 1 dishwasher. This had the potential to affect all current residents, as well as staff or visitors, who ate food served from dishes and tableware that were cleaned in the dishwasher.Findings include:During an observation on 7/6/26 at 1:58 p.m., the dishwasher wash cycle reached 153 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and the final rinse cycle reached 150 degrees F per the temperature gauges on the machine. A manufacturer sign posted next to the dishwasher instructed the final rinse cycle range should be 180-195 degrees F.During an interview on 7/6/26 at 1:58 p.m., culinary director (CD) indicated the dishwasher was a high temperature machine and stated the final rinse cycle must reach 180 degrees F. CD confirmed the low temperature and stated they needed to call the dishwasher company for service.During an interview on 7/9/26 at 9:25 a.m., the infection preventionist (IP) expected the dishwasher temperature to be hot enough to prevent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-07-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure medication refrigerators were kept within the recommended temperature range for 1 of 2 medication refrigerators. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any resident who received medications stored in the refrigerator.Findings include:During an observation on 7/7/26 at 2:07 p.m., the medication refrigerator in the main medication storage room had a reading of 42 degree's Fahrenheit (F). The medication log for July documented the last reading recorded as 39 degrees F. There were no temperatures recorded for July 1, 2, 3, 4, 6. The temperature log identified the safe range as 32 degrees to 41 degrees F (staff were using the food refrigerator temperature logs). Instructions identified staff were to report to the supervisor any time the temperature was out of range. Licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A verified the temperature for July was recorded only one time during July.A review of the medication temperatures for the past four months identified the following:-June there were only four…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-07-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure that all staff (including outside contracted staff) wear appropriate personnel protective equipment (PPE) and perform appropriate hand hygiene while completing wound care on a resident. This affected 1 of 1 (R60) residents reviewed for infection control. The facility also failed to change oxygen tubing timely to decrease the risk of infection for 1 of 1 (R37) reviewed for respiratory care. Findings Include: Wound Care: R60's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R60 had intact cognition. Diagnoses included peripheral vascular disease. Section M indicated R60 was at risk for pressure ulcers/injuries and had one stage two pressure ulcer that was not present on admission. R 60 also had one open lesion that was not a pressure ulcer, rash or cut. R60's infectious disease progress note dated 7/6/26, indicated R60 had an ulceration to the abdominal wall. On 11/6/26 at 3:48 p.m., a contact precautions sign was observed…
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 · D2026-07-09 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to complete a Self-Administration of Medication (SAM) assessment and acquire a physician order for self-administration for 1 of 1 resident (R72) who was observed to have medications left at bedside.Findings include: R72's Brief Interview for Mental Health performed on admission indicated moderate cognitive impairment. R72's electronic medical record (EMR) indicated diagnoses of urinary tract infection and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The EMR Lacked a SAM assessment or orders to keep medications at bedside. R72's care plan undated lacked a care plan related to ability to self-administer medications On 7/6/26 at 3:05 p.m., medications including nystatin cream and refresh eye drops were observed in a pink wash basin on the counter in R72's room. On 7/7/26 at 1:21 p.m., nystatin cream, refresh eye drops, and diclofenac cream were observed in the pink basin in R72's room. On 7/8/26 at 10:32 a.m. nystatin cream, refresh eye drops, and diclofenac cream were again observed in the pink basin on the counter in…
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 · D2026-07-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure orders for blood sugar readings were followed for 1 of 5 residents (R19) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include:R19's Face Sheet dated 7/9/26, identified he had diagnoses which included chronic heart failure (a chronic progressive condition where the heart muscle does not pump blood effectively), recurrent dislocation of right shoulder, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, and hypertension. R19's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], identified he was cognitively intact, had no rejections of care, and required substantial assistance with activities of daily living.R19's care plan identified he was at risk for a decline in medical condition related to diabetes mellitus. Interventions included to administer medications and treatments per the medical doctor's order.R19's Physician Order Report dated 6/1/26, identified the following: Test blood sugars QID (four times a day), before meals, and prior to bedtime.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure hot water temperatures were at safe temperatures at point-of-use for 27 of 27 residents who resided on the 200 hallway and the specialty care unit. In addition, the facility failed to ensure staff provided adequate supervision for transfers and activities of daily living for 2 of 2 residents (R49 and R40) and the facility further failed to follow the care plan related to transferring for the prevention of falls for 3 of 5 (R49, R40, R44) residents at risk for falls. Findings include: During a resident screening on 5/13/25 at 10:19 a.m., the hot water in bathroom of R34 felt very hot to touch after running the hot water for a couple of minutes. R34 stated the water takes a while to get hot, but then it gets very hot, and she had to blend it with cold water to use it. R34 stated she and nursing assistants (NA)s had talked about it before. During an observation and interview on 5/14/25 at 2:17 p.m., maintenance worker (MW)-A, who…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-15 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure medication orders for residents contained an indication for the medication for 3 of 5 (R19, R37, R49) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: R19: R19's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and diagnoses of frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder (a type of dementia), severe dementia with agitation, delusional disorders, paranoid delusions, hypothyroidism, asthma, restless leg syndrome, urinary incontinence, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, weakness, and fatigue. R19's MDS also identified hallucinations, delusions, verbal behavior toward others, and behavior significantly disrupts the living environment. R19's care plan last reviewed 5/13/25, didn't identify diagnoses or problem statements for hypertension, constipation, fluid retention, or issues with the skin in the perineal area. R19's provider orders identified the following medications without…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
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 a financial statement to 1 of 2 residents (R4) who had requested to receive a quarterly statement of their personal funds account. Findings include: R4's annual Minimum data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R4 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 5/12/25 at 3:27 p.m., R4 stated she had a personal trust account but was not getting any statements. R4 stated she was not sure how much money she had in the account. During an interview on 5/14/25 at 1:46 p.m., business office manager (BOM)-F verified R4 had a personal trust account and identified the statements were going to her old home address. BOM-F verified R4 should have been receiving her statements. During an interview on 5/14/25 at 2:12 p.m., the administrator verified the facility should follow the procedure in their policy. During a phone interview on 5/14/25 at 2:27 p.m., the corporate associate vice president of revenue cycle management verified R4's statement should have…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to identify and update the care plan with resident specific fall prevention interventions for 1 of 2 residents (R49) reviewed for multiple falls at the facility. Findings include: R49's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R49 was cognitively intact. R49's Resident Profile dated 5/15/25, included diagnoses of osteomyelitis, pain, chronic respiratory failure, congestive heart failure, diabetes type II, repeated falls, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, and unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility. R49's Care plan dated 3/27/25 to 5/15/25, included the following: Resident needs assistance with ADL's, start date 3/27/25 ---Dressing: staff to provide assist of one for dressing. ---Toileting: staff to provide assist of one with toileting. ---Transfers: -----assist of 1 for transfers using a gait belt and hemi-walker (edited 4/7/25, from mod I) -----provide limited/extensive assist of one with walker for transfers. Cue…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 assess post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and triggers and carry them forward to the care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R19) reviewed for trauma informed care. Findings include: R19's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and diagnoses of anxiety, major depressive disorder, psychotic disorder, PTSD, frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder, severe dementia with agitation, delusional disorder, and paranoid delusions. The MDS also identified R19 had hallucinations, delusions, verbal behavior toward others, and had behavior which significantly disrupted the living environment. R19's care plan dated 2/11/25, identified a problem statement for trauma-informed care related to a history of trauma of physical abuse as a minor from alcoholic parents including being tied up by the arms and legs to a bed, having socks placed in her mouth due to screaming, and was burned with cigarettes. The goal for R19 was for care…
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 before2025-05-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to utilize beard coverings in the kitchen to ensure sanitary conditions were maintained in food preparation areas. This deficient practice had the potential to impact all residents who received nourishment from the facility dietary services. Findings include: During an observation on 5/12/25 at 1:26 p.m., the food service consultant (FSC-A) was in the main kitchen area without a beard covering. FSC-A provided a tour of the kitchen food prep area, food dry and cold storage areas, the dishwashing area, and dish storage area while not wearing a beard covering. During an observation on 5/14/25 at 8:00 a.m., the culinary director (CD) was located behind the cook's prep table and did not have a beard covering on. During a continuous observation on 5/14/25 at 10:42 a.m. to 11:46 a.m., both the CD and FSC-A did not wear a beard covering during the following observed events: --10:43 a.m. to 1048 a.m., FSC-A stood in front of the cook's prep area without a beard covering as cook (C-A) pulled food from the oven and temped it. --10:51 a.m.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives for emergency care and treatment were accurately reflected in all areas of the medical chart to ensure resident wishes would be implemented correctly in an emergent situation for 1 of 24 residents (R106) reviewed for advanced directives. Findings include: R106's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R106 had moderate cognitive impairment. Diagnoses included dementia and malnutrition. R106's Provider Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) dated [DATE], included: -Section A for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) patient has no pulse and is not breathing section, directed staff to Attempt Resuscitation/CPR (Note: selecting this requires selecting Full treatment in Section B). -Section B for Medical Treatments patient has a pulse and/or is breathing directed staff to do comfort-focused treatment (allow natural death)' R106's electronic medical record (EMR) banner undated, identified R106 was do not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-14 · 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 ensure eye drops were disposed of when they were past the 28 day post open date. This had potential to affect 2 of 16 residents who resided on 300 hallway. Findings include: On 3/14/24 at 11:07 a.m., a review of the 300-hallway medication cart was performed. Observation was made of Olopatadine 0.2% solution eye drops that had an open date of 1/31/24. There were also a bottle of artificial tears eye drops open dated on 1/6/24. During an interview on 3/14/24 at 11:16 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A reviewed the medications and confirmed the dates on the medications were the open dated. She was unsure how long the medications were good for but believed they were safe to use for six months after opening. During an interview on 3/14/24 at 12:06 p.m., the pharmacy consultant (PC) stated eye drops such as Olopatadine and artificial tears were only good for 28 days after opened since the preservative in them would only be stable for 28 days. After the 28 days they may not be safe to use. During an interview on 3/14/24 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-09 · 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 notify the medical provider of high blood sugar levels for 2 of 3 residents (R2, R3) reviewed for change in condition. Findings include: The facility Standing Orders revised 10/30/21 directed to notify the medical provider if two blood glucose levels were under 70 or over 300 in a 24-hour period and/or change in condition; if no condition change, notify provider the next business day. R2's Face Sheet indicated diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy (kidney disease). R2's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R2 received insulin daily. R2's Vital Signs flow sheet indicated the following blood glucose (BG) levels: On 10/24/23 at 5:22 p.m., BG level was 301, and at 8:54 p.m., BG level was 371. On 10/26/23 at 11:24 a.m., BG level was 323 and at 5:39 p.m., BG level was 376. On 11/8/23 at 5:18 p.m., BG level was 313 and at 7:58 p.m. BG level was 465. R2's progress notes during this time frame lacked any entry 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CASSIA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 01/01/2018 |
| SMITH, SHAWNA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| DAHL, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| KERN, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| STADTHERR, SEELOCHANI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| YOUNGQUIST, KATHRYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| MACKAY, MARSHALL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| NYE, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| PARKS, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| RAMSDALE, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| WILKERSON, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 $921K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Minnesota Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 245491. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-09, 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.