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

Madonna Towers Of Rochester

4001 19th Avenue Northwest, Rochester, MN 55901 · Non profit - Corporation · 62 certified beds · (507) 288-3911 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (507) 288-3911 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)1 actual-harm citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$10,196 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $10,196 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-26)
  • nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★★ 5/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
4221 W Circle Dr NW · (515) 695-3796 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
3827 Marketplace Dr NW · (507) 536-3898 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
3918 18th Ave NW · (507) 258-5299 · Call to confirm hours
Park
3860 21st Ave NW · (507) 281-9090 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased13.7%18.2%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.1%4.1%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.0%1.9%0.9%typical for the state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.6%2.6%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.2%4.1%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury10.1%4.0%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened18.2%20.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication9.0%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers7.5%5.2%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control28.8%24.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table4.8%17.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.9%1.9%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.3%82.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission40.4%23.5%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit5.9%14.8%12.0%better

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.

52.0% 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 218 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

52.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
61.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.54U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.26hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 61.2% 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 80 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 0.54 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 SNF52.0%CMS range 44.9–58.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.4%CMS range 7.1–12.910.7%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 discharge61.2%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 discharge60.0%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 discharge47.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.0%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 worsened1.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization5.9%CMS range 3.9–9.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.801.02Oct 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

1.06
RN hours/ resident / day
0.54
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.38
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.97
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.69
RN hoursweekends
60.5%
Total nursing turnover
60.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 62 beds and averages 57.2 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.97 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.06 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.38 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.48 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.17 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.20 to 0.69 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

Inspection trend

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-23)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2025-06-12)

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-08-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for R2. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R2 who was identified as an elopement risk and was able to leave the facility through a fire door without staff knowledge. R2 was last seen on August 14 at 9:15 p.m. and found approximately two blocks away from the facility and brought back to the facility by police at 11:13 p.m. Staff was unaware that R2 had eloped due to the the door alarm not sounding. The IJ began on 8/14/24 when R2 eloped from the facility. The IJ was identified on 8/23/24. The Director of Nursing was notified of the IJ on 8/23/24 at 3:10 p.m. The IJ was removed on 8/15/24 and deficient practice was corrected on 8/16/24, prior to the start of the survey and was therefore past noncompliance. Findings include: R2's observation for elopement risk dated 7/30/24, indicated R2 recently had changes in medications and recently moved to the facility. R2 was disoriented. His elopement risk was low. R2's care…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-04 · 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 record review the facility failed to ensure safety during van transport by ensuring safety straps were appropriately applied for 1 of 1 resident (R1). The failure resulted in actual harm when the van came to a sudden stop throwing R1 from the wheelchair causing fractures to her right and left femurs. The facility had completed corrective measures by 5/26/26 and prior to the start of the survey so citation was issued at past non-compliance (PNC). Findings include: R1's face sheet dated 6/4/26, identified diagnoses of unspecified fracture of shaft of right femur (long bone), unspecified fracture of shaft of left femur, displaced supracondylar fracture without intercondylar extension of lower end of left femur (break just above the knee joint), Alzheimer disease, anemia, unilateral primary osteoarthritis of left knee, muscle wasting and atrophy, and muscle weakness. R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had severe cognitive impairment, had clear…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper personal protective equipment (PPE) was used during high-contact cares for 1 of 1 residents (R20) reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) who had an indwelling catheter (R20). Findings include: R20's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated R20 was cognitively intact, required partial assistance for activities of daily living (hygiene, toileting, transfers, ambulation), and had a urinary catheter. R20's diagnoses list included: neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, need for assistance with personal care, unsteadiness on feet, muscle weakness, arthritis of knee, and a history of falling. R20's careplan indicated R20 had a urinary catheter that required catheter care per facility protocol. R20 required extensive assistance from 1 staff member for transfers, bed mobility and activities of daily living. An infection careplan indicated R20 required enhanced barrier precautions related to the presence of an…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-06-12 · 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

    Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food stored in the refrigerators were labeled, dated and discarded properly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 55 residents, staff and visitors who received food from facility kitchen. Findings include: During the initial kitchen tour on 6/9/25 at 1:42 p.m., dietary manager (DM) stated the dates listed on the food was the date of opening or when it was prepped and should be tossed after one week. The following items were observed in the fridge expired or undated food: -Mushrooms dated 5/30/25 -Undated, opened celery appearing soft and browning -Undated, opened lettuce -Undated, opened chopped celery appearing with browning spots -Undated, opened carrots During interview on 6/9/25 at 1:42 p.m., culinary director (CD) stated the normal practice they follow is once foods are opened, the opened date is written on the container. The dated food is good for one week; the staff on evening shift will throw undated and expired foods every evening. CD confirmed the mushrooms, celery,…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively monitor and assess for edema (swelling) so intervention effectiveness could be determined, and new interventions developed if needed for 1 of 1 residents (R43) assessed for edema management. Findings include: R43's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R43 had intact cognition and was diagnosed with heart failure and debility. R43's care plan dated 5/23/25, indicated R43 was receiving a diuretic, which placed her at a high risk for adverse reactions staff were to monitor for an infective dose such as an increase in edema. The care plan indicated R43 was at risk for skin alteration related to a history of lymphedema (swelling from an accumulation of protein-rich fluid usually drained by the body's lymphatic system). The care plan indicated staff were to apply R43's left upper extremity edema wraps in the morning, leave them on until the next morning, take off and assess the skin, and then…

    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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 residents (R43, R14, R22) reviewed for immunizations were offered and/or provided the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)20 as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to help reduce the risk of associated infections. Findings include: A CDC Shared Clinical decision-making document titled PCV20 or PCV21 Vaccination for Adults 65 years or older dated 9/11/24 indicated: Adults [AGE] years of age or older have the option to receive supplemental PCV20 or PCV21 (not both) if they previously completed the pneumococcal vaccine series with both PCV13 and PPSV23 [pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine] and meet the following criteria: -Previously received one dose of PCV13 (but not PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21) at any age, and -Previously received all recommended doses of PPSV23 (including 1 dose of PPSV23 at or after [AGE] years of age) The determination to administer PCV20 or PCV21 is based on a shared clinical decision-making (SCDM)…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-12 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide the opportunity to make choices related to toileting for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R2) reviewed for choices. Findings include: R1's face sheet dated 2/12/25, identified diagnoses of stress fracture of left tibia (hairline crack in the shin bone) and fracture of middle phalanx of left finger. R1's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified resident to be cognitively intact. R1 was dependent for all transfers and frequently incontinent of bowel. R1's care plan dated 2/12/25, identified R1 was dependent for all transfers with a total mechanical lift. During an interview on 2/11/25 at 3:50 p.m., R1 stated it had been two days since she has been able to have a bowel movement due to having to use the bedpan instead of using the toilet. R1 stated, I don't feel like I have any power over anything anymore, they tell me when to eat, when to bathe, and when to get up. R1 stated when she puts her call light on to bathroom 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to implement care and services for catheter care and bowel continence for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence/catheter. Findings include: R1's face sheet dated 2/12/25, identified diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, stress fracture of left tibia, chronic kidney disease. R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 was cognitively intact and had an indwelling urinary catheter and frequent bowel incontinence. R1's care area assessment (CAA) dated 12/19/24, identified R1 needed assistance for toileting due to indwelling catheter. R1's physician progress note dated 12/18/24, identified R1 had an indwelling urinary catheter placed during a hospitalization for urinary retention. R1's nursing assistant care guide updated 2/5/25, directed staff that R1 had a catheter. However, did not give any direction to staff to provide catheter care or toileting plan.…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    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 comprehensively reassess and demonstrate adequate justification for the continued use of indwelling catheter for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for falls. In addition the facility failed to ensure a resident who was continent of bowel received services to maintain bowel continence for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for resident safety. Findings include: Catheter justification: R1's care plan dated 12/13/24, identified R1 required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) related to presence of indwelling catheter device .R1's care plan was reviewed and identified no indication for a foley catheter with no interventions to monitor for signs and symptoms of infection. R1's Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 12/14/24, section 6 urinary incontinence identified CAA triggered due to use of an indwelling catheter and need for assistance with toileting. R1 has a catheter in for skin care management, due to history of incontinence and reduced mobility 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 · F2024-08-26 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — widespread
    Regularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
    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 conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and bedrails as a part of the regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment. All of the residents at the facility have the same beds. The facility census was 55 and 50 of those residents had the same quarter siderails on the beds. The bed manufacturer guidelines indicated to visually inspect the bed and accessories monthly. This failure had the potential to affect 50 residents in the facility. Findings include: A side rails safety environment inspection form dated 9/20/22 indicated one resident with bedrails was assessed with revisions made and again on 5/24/24 one resident with siderails was inspected with revisions made. Upon observation on 8/23/24 at 10:10 a.m. all residents' rooms at the facility were observed for bedrails. Fifty residents had beds with quarter sized bedrails attached by the head of the bed and five residents did not have any bedrails.…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-08-26 · tag F0700 — pattern
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    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 attempt to try alternative devices before using bedrails on resident's beds for 7 of 7 resident (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7) when the facility failed to accurately assess the resident for risk of entrapment by assessing residents medical diagnoses, size and weight, cognition, communication, mobility, and risk of falling. In addition, the facility failed to provide ongoing assessments to assure the bedrail is used to meet the resident's needs. Findings include: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.18.11 dated October 2023 indicated a physical restraint is defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily and that restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. The important consideration is the effect of the device on…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-30 · 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 ensure process's were followed for safe mechanical lift transfers for 3 of 18 residents (R1, R2, R3) reviewed for safety with mechanical lift transfers. Findings include: R1: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had severe cognitive impairment. R1 had impaired range of motion (ROM) on one side of lower extremity and was completely dependent on staff for all transfers. R1's undated Facesheet identified diagnoses of right leg above the knee amputation, history of falling, and dementia. R1's care plan dated 12/8/23, identified R1 had a self-care deficit with transfers. An intervention on 12/22/23, identified R1 required assist of two staff for transfers with a ceiling lift for all transfers. Must use gold full body sling for all transfers; however, did not identify the size of gold sling to be used. R1's physical therapy (PT) treatment encounter note dated 12/22/23, identified R1 utilized a ceiling lift with an…

    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 · Ecited before2023-12-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to complete neurological assessments and comprehensively assess and monitor skin injuries following falls for 4 of 4 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4) who had unwitnessed falls or unwitnessed falls with injuries. Findings include: R4's face sheet included diagnoses of trochanteric bursitis, left hip, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy, age related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture, mild neurocognitive disorder, history of falling. R4's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R4 was cognitively intact, was dependent on staff for lower body dressing, was substantial to max assistance from staff for hygiene, and was partial to moderate assist from staff for toileting, mobility, and transfers. MDS also indicated R4 had a fall in the last month and another in the last 2-6 months. R4's Safety Events report-Falls dated 10/26/23, indicated R4 had an unwitnessed fall at 7:05 p.m., that resulted in a bump on…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2025-06-12 · tag F0732 — widespread
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    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 the required nurse staffing information was posted daily and contained the facility name. This had the potential to affect all 55 residents residing in the facility and/or visitors who may wish to view the information. Findings include: During observation, document review, and interview on 6/11/25 at 8:32 a.m., the nursing staff posting was observed in the main lobby near the entrance and was dated 6/9/25 with a resident population of 55 and did not have the facility name on it. The staff posting indicated the morning shift began at 6:00 a.m. The administrator confirmed the staff posting had not been updated since 6/9/25 as the staffing coordinator (SC) was on paid time off (PTO). The administrator stated she thought the health unit coordinator (HUC)-A would be the staff member in charge of updating the staff posting while the staffing coordinator was away. During an interview on 6/11/25 at 9:06 a.m., HUC-A stated the SC oversaw posting the staff posting and was not sure who oversaw completing this…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2023-12-28 · tag F0623 — pattern
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or resident representative (RR) with a written notice of facility initiated transfer for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: R1's face sheet included diagnoses of fracture of neck of left femur, chronic systolic heart failure, vascular dementia, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, long term use of anticoagulants, cognitive communication deficit. R1's progress note dated 12/15/23 at 6:33 p.m. indicated R1 had a fall and was on anticoagulation medication. He was transferred to the hospital for further evaluation. R1 returned to the facility at 6:45 p.m. In review of R1's record, it was not evident R1 and/or R1's resident representative was provided with a written transfer notice. During an interview on 12/28/2023, 2:40 p.m. regional director of clinical services (RDCS) reviewed R1's record and stated the facility completed the bed hold notice but did not complete a transfer notice. RDCS stated she was not aware of the regulation or requirement of transfer forms in…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

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

Fines & penalties

$10,196 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $10,196 — penalty dated 2024-08-26

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 BENEDICTINE HEALTH SYSTEM — 23 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 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.5+0.5 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 3 of 52.9+0.1 vs chain
The other 22 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)

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

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
BAKKE, CHRISTINEIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/17/2017
ANDERSON, JUSTINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2012
BOLDT, CHRISTINEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2005
EUSTICE, DIANEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2014
GEISLER, TIMOTHYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2013
GRAHAM, BARBARAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 08/31/2018
KOSHIRE, LARRYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/21/2015
OBRIEN, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/01/2012
RUSSELL, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/18/2016
SCHWINGHAMMER, DIANEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2013
SNYDER, BRUCEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2014
TRUEMAN, BARBARAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2018
WILLARD, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2014
BERGIEN, TRICIAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2017
RYMANOWSKI, KEVINIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2008
BENEDICTINE HEALTH SYSTEMOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/25/1995
CARLEY, GERALDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/03/2018

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$9.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-79.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$847K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 35%Medicare 15%Other / private 50%

This home reported $847K 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 2024. 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

$860per resident / day
operating cost
$26,158per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$479per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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 245153. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-23, 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