The Green Prairie Rehabilitation Center
800 Second Avenue Northwest, Plainview, MN 55964 · For profit - Corporation · 42 certified beds · (507) 534-3191 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 20.7% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 4.1% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.6% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.2% | 4.1% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 4.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.2% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 3.3% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.1% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.1% | 17.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.7% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.5% | 82.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.9% | 23.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.6% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.72 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.09 | 1.90 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
60.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 63 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 71 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 60.7%CMS range 50.8–71.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.7–14.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 70.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 64.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 54.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.0–13.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 42 beds and averages 38.6 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.29 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.07 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.20 to 0.75 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%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
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 residents call lights were answered in a timely manner for 2 of 2 residents (R6, R7) reviewed for grievances. Findings include: R7During an interview on 12/1/25 at 1:04 p.m., R7 stated she sometimes waits 45 minutes before staff respond to her call light. R7 reported I'm not supposed to be walking but sometimes I have to otherwise I have accidents. R7 also reported she has to search for staff when her urinary catheter bag is full. R7's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/4/25 indicated R7 had mild cognitive impairment.R7's grievance form indicated on 10/2/25, the administrator answered R7's call light. R7 reported to the administrator her call light had been on for a long time. The administrator checked the call light response screen which indicated the call light was on for 12 minutes. The administrator asked the social services director to speak to R7. R7 reported to the social services director her call light was on for a long time without anyone answering. The call button was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure flooring was fixed and secure for 1 of 1 resident (R6) reviewed for a safe, comfortable and homelike environment. R6's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/28/25 identified R6 had no cognitive impairment.During observation and interview on 12/1/25 at 5:35 p.m., R6 stated she was unhappy with the transition strip between her room floor and her bathroom floor. R6 stated the transition strip was not secured to the floor and she has caught her shoe on it when using the restroom. R6 stated she would have fixed the transition strip if she were at home. R6 stated she told the facility the transition strip was not secured approximately 2 weeks ago. R6 stated facility staff had not followed up with her about when it will be fixed.Record review showed facility staff submitted a maintenance request on 11/25/25 to have the transition strip repaired or secured. The maintenance record also showed the request to fix the transition strip was completed on 12/1/25; however, the transition strip had not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline abnormal involuntary movement assessment was performed for 1 of 1 residents (R3) and proper side effect monitoring was in place for 2 of 5 residents (R3 and R31) reviewed for unnecessary medications who receive antipsychotic medications.Findings include: R3's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/25/25 indicated R3 had moderate cognitive impairment with no behaviors. R3 required partial to substantial assistance for personal and toileting hygiene as well as transfers. The MDS indicated R3 had diagnoses that included debility/cardiorespiratory conditions, orthostatic hypotension (a drop in blood pressure with position changes), heart failure, high blood pressure, and diabetes. R3's diagnoses list included: auditory hallucinations, heart failure, repeated falls, orthostatic blood pressure (a drop in blood pressure with position changes), and depression. R3's cognition care plan indicated R3's orientation fluctuates evidenced by continuous requests to call family, confusion about time, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to identify the root causes of falls in order to appropriately implement person centered interventions to help prevent further falls for 1 of 1 resident (R36) reviewed for accidents.Findings include:R36's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/14/2025, indicated R36 had intact cognition, independent with eating, sit to stand movement, and ambulation with a walker. R36's admission fall assessment dated [DATE] indicated R36 was at risk for falls. R36's fall care area assessment (CAA) dated 10/2/2025, indicated R36 had previously fallen. R36 was at fall risk due to ongoing physical debility secondary to dementia. R36's care plan revised 10/2/25 outlined the following fall prevention interventions: call light pendant on, use call light pendant sign in room, keep room clean and free of clutter, keep call light within reach, monitor and document on safety. The care plan lacked further fall interventions added after 10/2/25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacy consultant identified irregularities in monthly drug regimen reviews for 2 of 5 (R3 and R31) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications who received antipsychotic medications. Findings include: R3's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/25/25 indicated R3 had moderate cognitive impairment with no behaviors. R3 required partial to substantial assistance for personal and toileting hygiene as well as transfers. The MDS indicated R3 had diagnoses that included debility/cardiorespiratory conditions, orthostatic hypotension (a drop in blood pressure with position changes), heart failure, high blood pressure, and diabetes. R3's diagnoses list included: auditory hallucinations, heart failure, repeated falls, orthostatic blood pressure, and depression. R3's care plan titled Potential psychotropic drug ADRs [adverse drug reactions] related to daily use of psychotropic medications indicated: administer as ordered, monitor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 medical records were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 1 resident (R6) reviewed for resident records.R6's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/28/25 identified R6 had no cognitive impairment. R6's MDS also indicated behavior symptoms (threatening others, screaming at others, or cursing at others) occurred 1 to 3 days.R6's care plan noted alteration in mood and behavior related to major depressive disorder. Further, resident is known to make inappropriate racial jokes or comments. Additionally, R6 appears to be malcontent as evidenced by complaints about wall paint, flooring, food, and staff. R6 will often refuse care from staff, then file a grievance stating staff did not care for her. Last, R6 can communicate her needs and feelings when asked.R6's orders indicated target behaviors should be monitored every shift, documented as the behavior observed, intervention used, and findings entered in the nursing progress notes. Target behaviors are outlined as: (A) isolation, (B) depressive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP)Findings include: R34's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/17/25, indicated R34 was cognitively intact with no behaviors. R34 required partial/moderate assist with oral hygiene, showering, personal hygiene, dressing, some position changes, and sitting to standing. R34 required substantial assist with transferring and applying/removing footwear. It also indicated R34 was dependent on staff for toilet hygiene. R34 was continent of bowels and frequently incontinent of urine. The MDS also indicated R34 had open lesions and skin tears. R34's diagnoses list included cellulitis (infection under the skin) of lower limb.R34's care plan included altered nutrition related to wound healing, urinary incontinence, discomfort related to wounds and immobility, and alteration to skin related to wounds.R34's provider orders included: follow EBP while providing wound cares and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-31 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to offer and/or provide a suitable and nourishing snack after dinner and before bedtime when there were more than 14 hours between the evening and morning meals. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility who would require a snack. Findings include: The facility provided a survey preparation binder which included an undated flyer titled Mealtimes: Breakfast - 8:00 a.m. Lunch - 12:00 p.m. Dinner - 5:00 p.m. During an observation on 10/29/24 at 2:08 p.m., a wicker basket was on the counter in the resident dining room. The basket contained applesauce, granola bars, pudding, animal crackers and rice krispie bars. In the refrigerator on a tray were half sandwiches in plastic bags, pieces of fruit, and a squeeze container of jelly. During an interview on 10/30/24, at 6:55 a.m., dietary aide (DA)-A stated dietary staff made peanut butter sandwiches for residents who didn't eat much for meals and were hungry later. DA-A stated the sandwiches were for any resident. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 12:35 p.m.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-31 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide 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 interview, observation and record review the facility failed to perform range of motion or ambulation (walking) as ordered for 2 of 2 residents (R14, R6) reviewed for restorative therapy programs. Findings include: R14's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R14 was cognitively intact, and diagnoses included stroke and hemiplegia or hemiparesis (loss of some or all ability to use one side of the body). R14 had functional limitation in range of motion to one side of the upper and lower extremities. R14 needed maximal assistance and dependent on staff for all mobility. R14's care plan dated 4/23/20, indicated impaired mobility related to stroke and resulted left side paresis. Interventions included two times a day when laying down range of motion (ROM) movements with left lower extremity (LLE), hip flexion/abduction and knee flexion for 20 repetitions. R14's Occupational Therapy (OT) Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated a ROM program had been made and given to nursing to follow. R14's passive range…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-31 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a 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 record review, the facility failed to provide physical therapy and occupational therapy as ordered for 1 of 1 resident (R5) reviewed for therapy services. Findings include: R5's admission Record undated, identified R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Epilepsy (A neurological disorder that causes seizures) and quadriplegia ( is the paralysis of both arms and legs due). R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R5 was nonverbal and unable to determine cognitive status. The MDS identified R5 had impairments to both upper and lower extremities, could not ambulate, and was dependent on staff for all cares. R5's discharge instructions and active order summary from R5's former LTC facility, dated and signed 7/7/22, identified R5 was discharged to [NAME] Prairie Rehab Center. The order summary report indicated occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) were to evaluate and treat as indicated after admitted to the facility. The…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT — 45 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.2 | +2.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
The other 44 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 44; lowest-rated first.
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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HML LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 12% | since 07/01/2016 |
| NIJ LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 14% | since 07/01/2016 |
| SPARTAN HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 23% | since 07/01/2016 |
| YAZOMA HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 23% | since 07/01/2016 |
| AREM, JEFFREY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 14% | since 07/01/2016 |
| STERN, WILLIAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 15% | since 07/01/2016 |
| HALPERT, MARC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 23% | since 07/01/2016 |
| JAFFA, NOAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 14% | since 07/01/2016 |
| LEGUM, JOSHUA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 23% | since 07/01/2016 |
| MUENCZ, JEFFREY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 12% | since 07/01/2016 |
| MONARCH HEALTHCARE OPERATING IV LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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.
This home reported $635K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Minnesota Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 245345. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-04, 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.