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

Three Links Care Center

815 Forest Avenue, Northfield, MN 55057 · Non profit - Corporation · 92 certified beds · (507) 664-8800 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (507) 664-8800 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Resident-funds citations (F0568, F0569)2 immediate-jeopardy citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • 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 citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568, F0569)
  • inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • 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.

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

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Pat and Pam, 307 Water St S · (434) 373-0249 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens0.3 mi
401 5th St W · (507) 645-9658 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
516 Water St S · (507) 650-0106 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1011 Forest Ave · (507) 645-3050 · 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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased15.8%18.2%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.8%4.1%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder3.1%1.9%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.0%2.6%2.0%typical
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.1%4.1%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.3%4.0%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened23.3%20.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication26.2%12.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.9%5.2%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control30.5%24.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table6.1%17.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.8%1.9%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine94.6%82.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission12.0%23.5%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.7%14.8%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.741.611.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.191.901.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

62.9% 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 72 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

62.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
45.9%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.22U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.10hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 45.9% 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 85 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 0.22 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 26% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF62.9%CMS range 49.8–71.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.2%CMS range 6.9–14.410.7%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 discharge45.9%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 discharge41.2%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 discharge45.9%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 identified97.8%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 setting95.2%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.3%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 hospitalization6.0%CMS range 3.1–11.07.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.671.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

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

Staffing

1.00
RN hours/ resident / day
0.58
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.58
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.16
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.65
RN hoursweekends
38.8%
Total nursing turnover
36.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 92 beds and averages 78.3 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 14 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 4.16 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.58 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.72 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.34 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.14 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% 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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-07-31)
8
at the previous standard inspection (2024-05-23)

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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-09-19 · 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 interview and document review the facility failed to ensure safe transfers with a full body mechanical lift for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for falls/safety. The facility's failure resulted in an immediate jeopardy situation for R1 when he slipped out the full body mechanical lift sling and fell from an elevated height. R1 was hospitalized due to a new fracture of the right femur and needed surgical intervention. The IJ began on 9/12/25, when 2 of 2 nursing assistants (NA)-A and NA-B did not follow manufacturer's recommendations for a safe lift transfer using the full body mechanical lift and the sling was not attached properly. As a result, R1 fell from the lift and sustained a new fracture of the right femur that needed surgical intervention. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the immediate jeopardy on 9/19/25 at 8:59 a.m. The facility implemented immediate corrective action on 9/12/25 to prevent reoccurrence, so the deficient practice was issued at past non-compliance…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-10-13 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to provide adequate assistance as identified by the care plan to prevent accidents when transferring 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for accidents. This failure resulted in R1 sustaining serious injuries requiring hospitalization and surgery. The immediate jeopardy began on 10/2/23 at approximately 1:05 p.m. when while R1 was transferred by nursing assistant (NA)-A with one assist instead of two as directed by the care plan, became weak and fell to the floor. R1 sustained an open fracture of her left ankle which required surgical intervention and an extended stay at a hospital. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on 10/13/23 at 3:15 p.m. The facility had implemented corrective action to prevent reoccurrence by 10/3/23, therefore, F689 is being issued at past non-compliance. Findings include: R1's care plan dated 10/9/23 indicated R1 transferred with assist of two staff members with a transfer belt. A Falls Note dated…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-31 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident choices for bathing preferences were assessed and honored for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for choices. Findings Include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated R1 had intact cognition with no hallucinations or delusions. The assessment indicated R1 needed moderate staff assistance with dressing, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene and footwear. On 7/28/25 at 6:33 p.m., R1 stated that she preferred to have a shower in the evening. R1 stated the facility had always given her showers during the day except for one time when they did not have time to complete it during the day and gave her a shower in the evening. R1 stated how much she enjoyed the shower in the evening and I have told everybody how much I liked the shower in the evening. R1's care plan, printed 7/29/25, identified the following: -Resident preferences will be considered when providing care with the following preferences: bedtime preference of 10…

    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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded, with the potential for inaccurate federal reimbursement and resident care planning for 1 of 5 residents (R48) reviewed for MDS accuracy. Findings include:The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/2024, indicates clinical standards do not support reverse staging or back-staging as a way to document healing as it does not accurately characterize what is occurring physiologically as the ulcer heals, as the tissues lost will never be replaced with the same type of tissue (page M-7). The manual instructs that once a pressure ulcer is healed, it should be documented as a healed pressure ulcer at its highest numerical stage, as it would remain at an increased risk for future breakdown and require continued monitoring and preventative care (page M-8). The manual indicates that a previously closed pressure ulcer…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the dignity of 1 of 2 residents (R31) reviewed who were cognitively impaired and had facial hair. Findings include:R31's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified admission to the facility on 7/10/25, with diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia, arthritis, depression, and cataracts. R31 had moderate cognitive impairment, used a wheelchair for mobility, required substantial assistance from staff for hygiene to include combing hair, shaving, washing/drying face and hands, baths, showers, and oral hygiene.R31's care plan dated 7/10/25, identified activity of daily living (ADL) interventions for bed mobility, oral cares, toilet use, transfers, bathing and showering, dressing and eating. Bathing and showers required a mechanical lift with assist of two staff for transfers. The plan lacked interventions to address shaving or grooming facial hair. A care sheet for July 2025 lacked documentation R31 received any…

    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 before2025-07-31 · 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 ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were followed for 1 of 2 residents (R3) reviewed for infection control related to the management of a tube feeding.Findings include:R53's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R53 was cognitively intact, and had no behaviors or hallucinations. MDS also indicated R53 had difficulty swallowing and received enteral feeding via a tube.R53's Clinical Diagnosis Report dated 7/31/25, indicated dysphagia following cerebral infarction, pharyngeal dysphagia, diverticulum of esophagus, gastrostomy, anxiety and gastro esophageal reflux.R53's Clinical Orders Report indicated R53 had orders for enteral feeding, medications via tube feeding, and nothing per mouth. Orders Report also indicated special instructions for EBP.R53's care plan printed on 7/31/25, titled feeding tube, directed staff to use infection control precautions and related techniques following the manufacture recommendations…

    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 · D2024-05-23 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively re-assess for safe self-administration of medication given via a nebulizer for 1 of 1 residents (R37) reviewed for self-adminstration of medications. Findings include: R37's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R37 had intact cognition and was diagnosed with respiratory failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- incurable lung disease causing breathlessness, frequent coughing, and chest tightness). The MDS indicated that R37 was receiving hospice services. R37's Self Administration of Inhaled Medications assessment dated [DATE] and 5/14/24, indicated R37 was able to demonstrate correct administration of medication via a nebulizer after staff set-up. R37's Self Administration of Inhaled Medications assessment dated [DATE], indicated R37 was able to correctly demonstrate how to use a nebulizer but due to staff reports of R37 falling asleep while completing the medication administration, he…

    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 · Dcited before2024-05-23 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure identified preferences for bathing routines (i.e., twice weekly) were honored to promote quality of life and resident' choice for 1 of 2 residents (R7) reviewed for choices during the survey. Findings include: R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R7 had intact cognition. On 5/20/24 at 2:09 p.m., R7 was interviewed, and she expressed frustration with her bathing routine adding, I was getting two baths a week but now they [staff] told me I'd only be getting one. R7 stated staff told her this a few weeks prior and she was not given a reason for the reduced bathing schedule, at least to her recall. R7 reiterated she wanted her second (in a week) bath re-scheduled adding, That would be nice. R7 stated she assumed they reduced it due to a lack of staff adding, They got so many people [other residents] here. R7's care plan, dated 4/10/24, identified R7 needed assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) due to weakness…

    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 · D2024-05-23 · tag F0569 — isolated
    Notify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident' trust account balances above the state-required supplemental security income (SSI) threshold (i.e., $3,000) were identified and acted upon to ensure ongoing coverage and reduce the risk of complication for 2 of 2 residents (R13, R42) reviewed who had balances exceeding the threshold. Findings include: A Minnesota Medical Assistance Treatment of Assets and Income, dated 9/2023, identified a person with medical assistance (i.e., Medicaid) living in a nursing home must contribute most of their income towards the cost of such care. The article outlined, The MA [medical assistance] asset limit is $3,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a couple, plus $200 for each dependent. A provided Trial Balance list, dated 5/22/24, identified all resident' trust accounts and their subsequent balances for the care center. This list identified R13 had an active balance recorded, [$]14,648.82, and R42 had an active balance recorded, [$]12,740.57. R13's Clinical Census, printed 5/23/24, identified R13 had a current payer…

    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 · D2024-05-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to reflect assessed needs and interventions with pain relief for 1 of 2 residents (R7) reviewed for pain management. Findings include: R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R7 had intact cognition and demonstrated no delusional behaviors. Further, the MDS outlined R7 consumed a schedule pain medication, received non-pharmacological interventions for pain, and occasionally complained of pain (including with affect on activities and sleep) during the review period. On 5/20/24 at 2:17 p.m., R7 was interviewed and expressed they had pain in their left leg from a fall weeks prior. R7 stated, It aches in this leg. R7 stated they were unsure if the physician was aware of it or not, and expressed the pain was worse with movement. R7 stated they were unsure if staff were aware of her pain or not adding, I don't know. R7's most recent Pain Data Collection - V9, dated 3/22/24, identified…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · 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 comprehensively assess for range of motion (ROM) after a significant change for 1 of 1 residents (R31) evaluated for limited mobility. Findings include: R31's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R31 had severe cognitive impairment with no history of behaviors or rejection of cares. R31 had ROM impairment to one upper extremity, no ROM impairment to lower extremities, and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs). R31's diagnoses included unspecified dementia, traumatic brain injury and contracture of left hand. R31's care plan printed 5/22/2024, indicated R31 required total assist with ADL's. During an interview on 5/20/2024 at 6:03 p.m., family member (FM-A) stated they wanted R31 to participate in ROM/therapy exercises. FM-A stated she was informed by therapy R31 sleeps all the time and would not be appropriate for exercises. FM-A stated R31 is awake and participates in ball toss…

    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 · D2024-05-23 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolated
    Provide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure dental services were offered or provided in a timely manner to prevent complication (i.e., trouble eating, pain) for 1 of 1 resident (R39) after it was determined their dentures were loose and not fitting correctly. Findings include: R39's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R39 admitted to the care center on 4/11/24 from the acute care hospital. The MDS recorded R39 as having intact cognition and demonstrating no delusional thinking. Further, a section labeled, Section L - Oral/Dental Status, identified R39 as having broken or loose fitting denture(s) and no natural teeth (i.e., edentulous). R39's Census listing, printed 5/22/24, identified R39's current payer source as, Private Pay. On 5/20/24 at 1:34 p.m., R39 was interviewed and expressed, I don't have teeth. R39 explained she had several dental implants but still had dentures, however, was not wearing them due to them being loose-fitting. R39 stated she thought, to…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-23 · 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 ensure proper infection control practices were utilized while completing personal hygiene and urinary catheter care for 1 of 1 residents (R25) reviewed for urinary tract infections (UTI). Findings include: R25's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R25 had intact cognition and was diagnosed with heart failure, kidney disease, and respiratory failure. The MDS indicated R25 was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, bed mobility, and transfers. R25's care plan dated 2/22/24, indicated R25 had a history of a UTI related to an obstruction of the urinary tract and also utilized a urinary catheter. The care plan indicated that R25 required assistance with catheter care every morning and night. The care plan indicated R25 required the assistance of two staff members with bathing and dressing. R25's order summary dated 2/22/24, indicated R25 had an indwelling urinary catheter in place and output was to be…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-08-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure frozen food items were stored in a manner to reduce the risk of cross contamination and potential foodborne illness in 1 of 1 walk-in freezers using the main production kitchen. This had potential to affect all residents who could potentially consume the items. Findings include: On 8/14/23 at 1:42 p.m., an initial kitchen tour was completed with the director of culinary service (DCS) present. A single CrownTonka walk-in commercial freezer was in use, opened, and inspected. The outside of the freezer door had a white sign posted which read, Be very careful in freezer! Floor is very [underlined] slippery!! Walk like a penguin!! Inside, the unit had a cooling fan mounted to the top of the unit which had various black-colored, foam-wrapped piping entering the fan unit on the right side. The wrapped piping exited the back of the unit, ran along the back wall of the freezer to the opposite side, then entered the wall. However, the piping had visible ice built up in numerous places including along the unit.…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-08-17 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 comprehensively assess, develop and implement interventions to address unplanned weight gain for 1 of 1 resident's (R13) who sustained an undesired weight gain of 41 pounds over the last 15 months. Findings include: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) About Adult BMI article dated 6/3/22, indicated a body mass index (BMI) for adults (over the age of 20 years) of 30.0 and above was obese. The article also indicated people who were obese were at an increased risk for many disease and health conditions including but not limited to: death, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease), mental illnesses (depression, anxiety) and a low quality of life. R13's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R13 had intact cognition, was independent for eating, required limited assistance for transferring and extensive assistance for all other activities of daily living…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2024-05-23 · tag F0568 — pattern
    Properly 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 ensure resident' trust account statements were provided on, at least, a quarterly basis for 1 of 1 resident (R29) reviewed who expressed never receiving such statement. The lack of provided statements had the potential to affect an additional 26 of 26 residents identified to have trust accounts at the care center. Findings include: R29's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R29 had intact cognition. On 5/20/24 at 3:08 p.m., R29 was interviewed and verified he had a trust account which was managed by the care center adding, It's got only like 100 bucks or so. R29 stated he opened the account many months prior, however, had never received a statement from the care center with any balance outlined adding, No, not seen that. A provided Trial Balance list, dated 5/22/24, identified 27 residents, including R29, had active accounts as of the listed date. R29 was identified as having an account with a balance recorded,…

    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

“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 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.2+0.8 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.6+0.4 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 52.9+1.1 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
EHLERS, DOUGLASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2023
GOODNOUGH, JENNIFERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; 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 07/25/2017
BACH, CURTISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/28/2024
DRIPPS, DANIELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2016
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
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 11/01/2023
BREYER, CARMENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/06/2022
CASPERS, MEGANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/29/2014
DENZER, CYNTHIAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/02/2024
DONACIK, RONALDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/03/2025
HANNEKEN, MICHELLEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/20/2022
HAUGEN, JOHNIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
HEJHAL, ROXANNEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/10/2023
HOFMANN, REEDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/08/2023
LETICH, ELIZABETHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 11/01/2023
LEWIS, JODIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/03/1990
MARLOW, JINAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/06/2022
MARQUARDT, REEGANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/20/2024
MEYER, DAWNIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/31/2025
MITTAL, VIKASIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
RENTZ, MARKIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/22/2024
RYAN, BENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/27/2012
STOCK, KELSEYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2022
SWEDIN, ROBERTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/11/2022
TEPOVICH, NICHOLASIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/02/2024
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
GRUBER, AMANDAIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 08/07/2007
ZARAGOZA, JUANIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/02/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 109 rows in the source record cover these 42 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.

$21.5M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-12.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 49%Medicare 7%Other / private 44%

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

$923per resident / day
operating cost
$28,049per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$823per 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 245450. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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