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

Gables Of Boutwells Landing

13575 58th Street North, Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 · Non profit - Corporation · 108 certified beds · (651) 430-7200 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (651) 430-7200 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation1 Medicare payment denial
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)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • 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 3 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
13189 60th St N · (651) 390-2001 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
5815 Norell Ave N · (651) 439-7630 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
5815 Norell Ave N · (651) 600-9713 · Call to confirm hours
Park
5697 Norwich Pkwy · (651) 439-4439 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1905 Greeley St S Ste 202 · (651) 351-7676

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 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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 rating5★
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 increased17.6%18.2%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight8.6%4.1%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.2%1.9%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.3%2.6%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms8.5%4.1%6.5%worse
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.9%4.0%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened20.6%20.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication19.7%12.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine89.4%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.2%5.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control30.2%24.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table35.7%17.1%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%1.9%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine92.7%82.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission20.9%23.5%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.2%14.8%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.531.611.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.981.901.80better

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.

48.7% 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 172 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

48.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
54.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.68U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.33hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.27hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 54.1% 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 133 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 0.68 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 29% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF48.7%CMS range 43.1–53.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.0%CMS range 7.4–15.810.7%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 discharge54.1%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 discharge39.9%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 discharge17.3%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 setting90.5%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 discharge87.0%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 worsened2.1%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 hospitalization6.7%CMS range 3.3–11.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.591.02Oct 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

1.46
RN hours/ resident / day
0.21
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.99
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.65
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
1.18
RN hoursweekends
31.0%
Total nursing turnover
22.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 108 beds and averages 101.4 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.46 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.99 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.41 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.75 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.58 to 1.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-06-10)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-02)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

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

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-30 · 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 implement assessed and directed fall prevention techniques for 2 of 3 residents (R1,R2) reviewed for falls. This resulted in actual harm for R1 who had an assisted fall to the floor when staff were not utilizing a gait belt during a transfer as assessed and R1 sustained a right ankle fracture. Findings include: R1's annual Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had diagnoses which included osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, and R1 had moderately impaired cognition. R1's care plan revised on 5/26/24, identified R1 had limited physical mobility related to muscle weakness and impaired gait/balance, chronic shoulder pain, dementia with memory loss and required a front wheeled walker and assistance by staff when transferring and ambulating. Further, R1's care plan identified R1 was at risk for falls. Review of facility's Summit 3 Communication Sheet dated 5/16/24, identified R1 was a fall risk and directed staff to assist R1 with…

    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 · F2026-06-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure milk was not in use past the use by date, refrigerated items were labeled and dated, and maintain cleanliness of ceiling vent, refrigerator, and freezers in the main kitchen. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure beard nets were used in food preparation and service areas. This had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the facility kitchen. Findings include: An observation on 6/8/26 at 11:19 a.m., the main kitchen was observed. A walk-in storage freezer was observed to have boxes stored on the floor and several frozen tater tots scattered across one corner of the freezer floor. A refrigerator used for some of the independent living residents contained a tray of portion cups containing tartar sauce that were undated. The bottom shelf of this refrigerator was dirty and filled with crumbs and food debris. A walk-in freezer in the main kitchen area was found to have sticky floors and several frozen sausage…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-10 · 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, document review, the facility failed to assess a resident's ability to self-administer medications for 1 of 1 resident (R126) reviewed for self-administration of medications. Findings include: R126's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R126 was cognitively intact. R126's diagnoses included compression fracture of the spine with routine healing, epilepsy (seizures), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (heartburn).R126's physician orders dated 5/28/26, included Calcium Carbonate (Tums) 500 milligrams (mg), two tablets by mouth every four hours as needed for heartburn or upset stomach. R126's provider orders lacked indication R126 was able to self-administer medication.R126's comprehensive nursing data collection dated 5/28/26, indicated R126 had not brought medications with upon admission. The assessment further indicated R126 did not choose to self-administer medications.R126's care plan dated 6/1/26, indicated R126 chose not to self-administer…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for residents who were dependent on staff assistance for 3 of 4 residents (R106, R24, and R9) reviewed for call light accessibility. Findings include: R106 R106's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderately impaired cognition, no behaviors or rejection of care. two falls since prior assessment, one with major injury, and that she required partial to moderate staff assistance for toileting hygiene, lower body dressing, sit to stand ability and chair/bed to chair transfers. R106 required partial/moderate staff assistance in her manual wheelchair to propel 50 feet and make two turns. Diagnoses included blindness and anxiety. R106's care plan intervention dated 5/20/26, identified due to limited physical ability assist of one staff was required for stand and pivot transfers. The care plan did not identify wheelchair mobility. R106 care plan intervention dated 1/15/26, 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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-10 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolated
    Ensure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is 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 record review, the facility failed to provide setup meal assistance for 1 of 2 residents (R28) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). Findings include:R28's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R28 had severe cognitive impairment, required setup or clean up assistance with eating, and substantial/maximal assistance with mobility. R28's diagnoses included non-traumatic brain dysfunction (an alteration in brain function caused by internal factors such as illness, oxygen deprivation, or toxic exposure), dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. R28's care plan last reviewed 4/2/26, indicated R28 had ADL self-care performance deficit related to her diagnoses and that she was independent with eating after setup. During interview on 6/8/26 at 12:22 p.m., family member (FM)-A stated R28 required assistance with meals and needed to have her silverware placed out, otherwise she would eat with her fingers. During observation on 6/9/26 at 8:56 a.m., nursing…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-10 · 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 ensure 2 of 2 residents (R7, R9) with perimeter mattresses were assessed for safety. Findings include: R7R7's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated severely impaired cognition and diagnoses of dementia, reduced mobility and muscle weakness. It further indicated R7 required partial assistance with bed mobility (roll left and right), substantial assistance with lying to sitting on the edge of the bed, sitting to standing, and transfers.R7's care plan dated 2/13/24, indicated R7 had limited physical mobility related to dementia with mood disturbance and anxiety, [NAME] disease (genetic muscle disorder), spinal stenosis, and osteoarthritis. It further indicated an intervention of a perimeter mattress to assist R9 in finding the edges of her bed for bed mobility. R7's Mobility, Physical Device, and Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], lacked documentation of an assessment for a perimeter/defined edge mattress. R9…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-10 · 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 involving hand hygiene and glove use during incontinent care for 1 of 1 resident (R8) observed during cares. Findings include:R8's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R8 had moderately impaired cognition, had an indwelling urinary catheter, was frequently incontinent of bowel, required a feeding tube, and was dependent on staff for all personal care. R8's diagnoses included benign neoplasm of meninges (tumors in the protective membranes of the brain and spinal cord), chronic kidney disease, dysplasia (difficulty swallowing), aphasia (condition affecting speech), dependance on supplemental oxygen, and history of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (brain bleed not due to injury). R8's care plan dated 4/2/26, indicated R8 had a suprapubic catheter (tube directly through the skin into the bladder for draining), was incontinent of bowel, had a G/J (gastrojejunostomy) tube 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-02 · 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 ensure range of motion (ROM) was provided for 1 of 2 resident (R19) reviewed for mobility. Findings include: R19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, did not have hallucinations or delusions, and did not reject cares. Further, R19 had upper and lower extremity limitations in range of motion on both sides. R19's Optional State assessment dated [DATE], indicated R19 was totally dependent with bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. R19's Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 8/7/24, indicated R19 could not ambulate, and had complications from immobility that included contractures. R19's Medical Diagnosis form indicated R19 had the following diagnoses: multiple sclerosis (a disease affecting the central nervous system), other specified polyneuropathies (nerve damage), muscle weakness, other reduced mobility. R19's physician's orders identified the following orders: • 8/1/24, Occupational therapy and…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-10 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the provider documented a clear clinical rationale for actions taken or not taken; including risks and benefits to justify the continued use of medications identified to put the resident at risk for falls and adverse effects for 1 of 1 resident (R83) reviewed for requests for clinical rationale. Findings include: R83's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified a fall occurred in the past two to six months prior to admission. No behaviors or rejection of care occurred, and the mood interview indicated no depression. R83's corresponding Care Area Assessments (CAA), undated, identified falls was triggered related to history of falls, impaired mobility, cognition, hearing, pain, incontinence, anticipated decline, and medication side effects and care planning was in place to minimize risks and provide symptom relief or palliative measures. Additionally, psychotropic medication use was triggered related to high 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-10 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    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 they were free of a medication error rate of five percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 7.41% with 2 errors out of 27 opportunities for errors involving 2 of 7 residents (R25 and R34) who were observed during the medication pass. Findings Include: R25 R25's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R25 was cognitively intact and required staff assistance with most activities of daily living. The MDS indicated R25 had diabetes mellitus (DM) and received insulin daily in the 7-day lookback period. R25's care plan revised 5/14/24, identified a risk for alteration in blood glucose levels related to the diagnosis of diabetes and tasked staff with providing medications per orders. R25's provider order dated 6/28/24 indicated, HumaLOG Injection Solution 100 UNIT/ML (Insulin Lispro). Inject as per sliding scale: if 141-180 = 2 units give before meals, anything above 400 gives 14 units. May sub…

    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
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-10 · 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 followed when staff failed to utilize enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and proper hand hygiene for 1 of 1 resident (R20) observed during wound care. Findings include: R20's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R20 was cognitively intact, required partial to substantial staff assistance in most activities of daily living, and at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Diagnoses included debility (general weakness), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and oxygen therapy. R20's care plan (CP) dated 6/18/24, identified EBP was placed due to a wound. The CP directed staff to follow EBP, in addition to standard precautions, by wearing gown and gloves during high-contact care activities. R20's physician orders dated 6/18/24 indicated wound care to coccyx every shift and as needed for wound integrity. During an observation on 7/8/24 at 1:55 p.m., R20's door had an EBP…

    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

“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. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

  • Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-06-27 for 12 days

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES — 21 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 54.3-0.3 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.4-0.4 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.9≈ chain avg
Quality measures 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 20 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.3★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES ALLIANCEOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 12/05/2005
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NAOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTERESTsince 07/01/2024
FLETCHER, JONATHANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2025
PEDERSON, MARKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
PETERSON, HEIDIIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2023
MEYER, MARKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/11/2011
PHS MANAGEMENT, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/11/2011
MIDDLETON, GAVINIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2019
PEDERSON, JANEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2021

CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$14.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-129.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.1M
Related-party expense6% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 26%Medicare 5%Other / private 69%

This home reported $2.1M 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

$982per resident / day
operating cost
$29,838per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$427per 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 245615. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-10, 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