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

West Wind Village

1001 Scotts Avenue, Morris, MN 56267 · Non profit - Corporation · 45 certified beds · (320) 589-7900 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (320) 589-7900 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
501 Poler St · (320) 239-3939 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
3 E State Highway 28 · (320) 589-4550 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
10 W 6th St · (320) 585-5050 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1113 Pacific Ave · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased30.2%18.2%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.8%4.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder3.4%1.9%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%4.1%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.2%4.0%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened17.6%20.5%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication13.2%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers0.0%5.2%4.7%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control33.7%24.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table2.7%17.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.9%1.4%better

* 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.

51.7% 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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

51.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.1%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
54.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.20U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.10hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
<0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 54.5% 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 22 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF51.7%CMS range 40.1–63.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.1%CMS range 6.4–15.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge54.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge54.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge59.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.851.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

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

Staffing

0.79
RN hours/ resident / day
0.62
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.35
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.77
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.38
RN hoursweekends
36.4%
Total nursing turnover
50.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 45 beds and averages 42.1 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 3 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 3.77 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.32 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-06)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2025-07-30)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

  • Actual harm · G2025-07-30 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to assess, implement and evaluate a loss in range of motion for 1 of 1 resident (R7) reviewed for range of motion. This practice resulted in harm when R7 was observed with her right hand contracted, increased pain and difficulty ambulating with a walker. In addition, the facility failed to provide functional maintenance programs as ordered to maintain and/or prevent loss of range of motion (ROM) for 8 of 8 residents (R7, R5, R3, R11,R17,R30,R33, R39) reviewed. Findings include: R7's significant change Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], identified R7 had moderate cognitive impairment and diagnosis of hypertension (elevated blood pressure), and end stage renal disease (ESRD) and required moderate assist with activities of daily living (ADL's) which include bed mobility toileting and transfers. R7 had impairment on one side of upper extremity. R7's ADL Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 6/18/25, identified R1 had physical limitations such as,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to implement donning/doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) practices for 1 of 3 residents (R4) observed for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) (an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities).Findings include: Review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance dated 4/1/24, Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs) indicated Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring gown and glove use for Enhanced Barrier Precautions included: dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator and wound care: any skin opening…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-30 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately 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 physician and resident representative for 1 of 1 resident (R7) who had a decline in range of motion (ROM) reviewed for limited ROM.R7's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R7 had moderate cognitive impairment and diagnosis which included cancer, hypertension (elevated blood pressure), and end stage renal disease (ESRD). R7 required moderate assist with activities of daily living (ADL's) which include bed mobility toileting and transfers and R7 had impairment on one side of upper extremity.R7's ADL Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 6/18/25, identified R1 had physical limitations such as, limited range of motion , poor coordination, poor balance, visual impairment, or pain. R7 was at risk for complications of immobility such as contractures.R7's care plan revised 7/18/25 had a self-care deficit related to impaired balance and right sided upper extremity weakness. R7 was independent to walk with a walker. 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to re-assess and develop interventions for residents at risk for elopement (leave the facility without staff knowledge) for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for elopement.Findings include:R7's significant change Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], identified R7 had moderate cognitive impairment and diagnosis which included cancer, hypertension (elevated blood pressure), and end stage renal disease (ESRD). R7 required moderate assist with activities of daily living (ADL's) which include bed mobility toileting and transfers and had impairment on one side of upper extremity.R7's care plan revised 7/28/25, identified R7 was at risk for wandering and had a wander guard on. Interventions included: provide care in a calm and reassuring manner. Care plan lacked further interventions related to wandering. R7's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE], identified R7 had no desire to leave, requests assistance to get into and out of the building due…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-05-01 · tag F0851 — widespread
    Electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data, during 1 of 1 quarters reviewed (Quarter 1), to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) according to specifications established by CMS. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 47 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the Payroll Based Journal Report (PBJ) [NAME] Report 1705D identified the following dates triggered for review: 10/21/23, 11/11/23, 11/19/23, 11/25/23, 12/2/23, 12/10/23, 12/30/23, and 12/31/23 for failure to have licensed nurse coverage 24 hours per day. Review of staffing schedules from 10/15/23 thorough 12/31/23, identified the facility had 14 staff identified to have worked: registered nurse (RN)-C, RN-D, RN-E, RN-F, RN-G, licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A, LPN-B, LPN-C, LPN-D, LPN-E, LPN-F, LPN-G, LPN-H, and LPN-I on each of the above dates listed. In addition,…

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

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-05-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene and donning/doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) was performed in order to prevent the spread of infection for 2 of 3 residents (R7, R29) observed for enhanced barrier precautions (an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities). In addition, the facility failed to implement the water management plan for the prevention of Legionella (a bacterium) in the facility water system. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 47 residents who resided in the facility. Further, the facility failed to ensure water pitchers were delivered in a manner that prevented risk of contamination for 2 of 3 hallways observed for water pitcher pass. In addition, the facility failed to ensure catheter drainage bags and wound vacs were properly placed to prevent the risk…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-01 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor 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 ensure urinary catheter drainage bags were covered to maintain dignity for 1 of 1 resident (R25) observed with uncovered urinary catheter drainage bag in view of residents, staff and visitors. Findings include: R25's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R25 had diagnoses of multidrug-resistant organism (bacteria that have become resistant to certain antibiotics, and these antibiotics can no longer be used to control or kill the bacteria), dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), and renal failure (kidneys are no longer able to filter and clean blood). Identified R25 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene. Indicated R25 had an indwelling catheter. R25's care plan last dated 6/13/22, indicated R25 had an indwelling foley catheter due to an open sacral wound…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-01 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    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 procedures were implemented and followed to ensure sufficient medication supplies, timely medication re-ordering, after hours on-call pharmacy use, and appropriate action(s) taken when a medication was not available for administration for 1 of 3 residents (R147) reviewed for medication administration. Findings include: A Vulnerable adult maltreatment report was submitted to the State Agency (SA) on 9/18/23 at 12:55 p.m., and identified R147's ordered Oxycodone (pain medication) was out of supply; thus, R147's Oxycodone was omitted on the morning of 9/18/23 and R147 was sent to the emergency room for out of control cancer pain In addition, the report indicated his medical record lacked evidence staff followed-up with the pharmacy or that his provider was notified timely. R147's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R147 was severely cognitively impaired with diagnoses of cancer, diabetes, arthritis and anxiety.…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to ST. FRANCIS HEALTH SERVICES — 14 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 52.8+2.2 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.2+1.8 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.6+0.4 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 52.9+0.1 vs chain
The other 13 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
DRIPPS, DANIELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2016
EHLERS, DOUGLASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2023
GOODNOUGH, JENNIFERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2021
GRAMM, TIMOTHYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2023
LAIR, MICHAELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
LIENEMANN, STEVENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
LUETMER, JOHNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2021
NELSON, PATRICKIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2020
RENTZ, LAURAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
RENTZ, PAULIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2021
SCHNEIDER, TODDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2013
WIESE, LORRAINEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2016
MARLOW, JINAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/06/2022
PETERSON-DEVRIES, CAMIIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/08/2022
RAW, CAROLIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/16/2005
BACH, CURTISIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/28/2024
BIG STONE THERAPIES, INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/03/2015
EIDE BAILLY LLPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/03/2023
ST. FRANCIS HEALTH SERVICES OF MORRIS, INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2025
BAKKE, CHRISTINEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/30/2019
BLACK, DAVIDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/31/2025
BURROWS, AMANDAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/02/2024
CASPERS, MEGANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/29/2014
CHRISTIANSON, HALEYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/15/2021
HANNEKEN, MICHELLEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/20/2022
HEJHAL, ROXANNEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/10/2023
HOFMANN, REEDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/08/2023
JOHNSON, TODDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
LIEN, SHANNONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/28/2010
PUCHALSKI, SHANNONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/10/2021
RENTZ, MARKIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/22/2024
RYAN, BENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/27/2012
SCHIELE, JOYCEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 11/19/2012
SMITH, KIMBERLYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/09/2024
SOMMERS, ADAMIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
STOCK, KELSEYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2022
THOMPSON, RENEEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/10/2018
TOMOSON, APRILIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/12/2021
WALKER, AMYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/13/2024
MECKLENBURG, JENNYIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 11/08/1989
MOSER, KATHRYNIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 05/09/2014

CMS files one row per role, so the 110 rows in the source record cover these 41 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.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$9.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-12.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$389K
Related-party expense4% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 49%Medicare 5%Other / private 47%

This home reported $389K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$512per resident / day
operating cost
$15,564per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$456per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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

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

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

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 245262. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-06, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

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

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

What to do next