St Benedicts Care Center
1810 Minnesota Boulevard Southeast, Saint Cloud, MN 56304 · Non profit - Corporation · 75 certified beds · (320) 252-0010 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding 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
- nursing-staff turnover (62%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 fell from 5 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.
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 | 28.9% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 4.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.4% | 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 | 0.5% | 4.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 33.0% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.0% | 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 | 9.1% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.0% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.3% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.8% | 82.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.3% | 23.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.9% | 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.
66.3% 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 54 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 58 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 66.3%CMS range 56.7–77.3 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 5.7–15.0 | 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 | 62.1% | 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 | 62.1% | 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 | 36.2% | 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 | 95.3% | 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 | 5.5% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 3.2–11.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.73 | 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 75 beds and averages 71.3 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.46 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 2.54 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.97 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.65 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.23 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 62% is well above 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 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.
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.
- Actual harm · G2026-04-08 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to follow manufacturer's recommendation and facility policy to ensure safe transfers with an EZ Way Smart Lift (mechanical, full body lift) for 1 of 3 resident (R1) reviewed for full body mechanical lift transfers. R1 fell out of the sling and sustained a laceration to his right eyebrow, was sent to the Emergency Department (ED), and required sutures. The facility implemented corrective action prior to the survey; therefore, the deficient practice was issued at past non-compliance.Findings included:R1's admission record dated 12/4/25, indicated R1's diagnoses included palliative care, wild-type transthyretin-related amyloidosis (build-up of abnormal proteins in tissues, such as heart and nerves), chronic kidney disease stage four (severe, irreversible loss of kidney function), and rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of skeletal muscle tissue).R1's care plan dated 12/4/2025, indicated R1 needed a full mechanical lift with assist of two staff for transfers.R1's…
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 · Dcited before2026-04-08 · 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 document review, the facility failed to ensure staff consistently implemented enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) in accordance with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines to reduce the risk of infection spread for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for transfers.Findings include:R1's admission record dated 12/4/25, indicated R1's diagnoses included benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate) with lower urinary tract symptoms.R1's care plan dated 3/4/26, indicated R1 had an indwelling foley catheter.R1's order summary report dated 3/4/26, indicated R1 had a foley catheter.During an observation on 4/7/26 at 12:45 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-C and NA-D entered R1's room to transfer R1 from his wheelchair to another wheelchair for an appointment. R1 did not have signage or supplies for EBPs on his door or in his room. NA-C and NA-D did not have any EBPs (gown and gloves) on during R1's transfer. R1's lift sling was hooked to the full body mechanical lift. NA-C grabbed R1's catheter bag from under his wheelchair and attached it to the sling. R1…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 residents (R27) reviewed for dignity, received services in a dignified manner to promote quality of life when staff failed to respond timely to call light and provide toileting assistance resulting in incontinent episodes and adult son of R27 provided toileting assistance. Findings include: R27's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R27 was cognitively intact, did not reject cares and was dependent on staff assistance for all toileting needs. During an interview on 5/12/25 at 1:49 p.m., R27 stated she needed help to use the bathroom, some call light times exceeded 20 minutes and once over two hours. R27 stated there had been times she became incontinent because of the long wait time. It was embarrassing. R27 stated during a visit with family on Mother's Day (5/11/25) she had turned on her call light and requested help to use the bathroom. Staff came to the room, shut the light off and said they would be right back.…
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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the care plan included management and monitoring of anticoagulant (blood thinner) therapy for 1 of 5 residents (R1) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: R1's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 was cognitively intact, received anticoagulation medications and had the following diagnoses: A-fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), Acute Embolism and Thrombosis of Deep Veins (blood clots within a blood vessel), and heart failure. R1's order summary report printed 5/14/25 indicated R1 took the following medications: Warfarin 1 mg by mouth one time daily every Friday for A-fib. Warfarin 1.5 mg by mouth one time a day every Monday, Wednesday for A-fib. Warfarin 2 mg one time every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday for A-fib. R1's care plan printed 5/13/25 identified a potential for injury related to history of falls, decreased/impaired mobility, diuretic medications and decline in activities of daily living.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-01 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop 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 4 of 5 residents (R21, R25, R28, R53) were offered and/or provided the pneumococcal vaccine series as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to help reduce the risk of associated infection(s). Findings include: A CDC Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults feature, dated 3/15/2023, identified various tables when each (or all) of the pneumococcal vaccinations should be obtained. This identified when an adult over [AGE] years old had received the complete series (i.e., PPSV23 and PCV13; see below) then the patient and provider may choose to administer Pneumococcal 20-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) for patients who had received Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) at any age and Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV23) at or after [AGE] years old. R21's significant change minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated hypertension (high blood pressure), peripheral vascular disease (poor blood vessel flow)…
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 · D2024-08-01 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the correct advanced directives were documented and stored in the resident's paper chart for 1 of 1 resident (R110) reviewed for advanced directives. Findings include: R110's face sheet dated 7/30/2024, indicated R110's advance directive wishes were Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). R110's current order summary report dated 8/2/24, indicated R110 was a DNR. On 7/29/24 at approximately 2:25 p.m., R110's paper chart included an Advanced Directive Consent (ADC), however it was for Full code, and had another residents name on the form, not R110's. On 7/29/24 at 2:30 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated they would go to the paper chart to verify the residents code status. On 7/29/24 at 2:30 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated they would go to the paper chart to verify the residents code status. LPN-A retrieved R110's paper chart and stated R110 was a full code. LPN was directed to verify the resident's name on the ADC and LPN-A stated the person was not the same. It was not R110's ADC. On 7/29/24 at 2:39 p.m., the unit…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-01 · 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 facility failed to follow infection control protocol for 1 of 1 residents (R21) on contact precautions. Findings include: On 7/29/24 at 2:10 p.m., a sign was observed posted on R21's door that indicated the resident was on contact precautions. The sign had two stop signs, one in each of the upper corners of the sign, and bold upper-case wording Contact precautions everyone must. The sign included instructions to wash hands before entering and when leaving the room, put on gown and gloves before entering the room and remove before exiting the room. Gloves and gowns were in a hanging yellow container on the door next to the sign. A progress noted dated 7/29/24 included the resident was on contact precautions until further notice or update. On 7/31/24 at 8:00 a.m., housekeeper (H)-A was observed in R21's room adjusting a blanket on R21's bed. H-A was wearing only gloves, no gown. H-A swept the floor and exited the room, removing gloves upon exit. On 7/31/24 at 8:02 a.m., H-A stated R21 was only on precautions when she was having…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0777 — isolatedProvide or obtain x-rays/tests when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to notify the ordering physician of x-ray results, which revealed newly identified fractures, in a timely manner for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed. Findings included: R1's annual Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1's had a diagnosis of severe vascular dementia with anxiety and mood disturbance. R1's Progress Notes revealed the following: -On 7/15/24 @ 12:17 p.m., R1 reported he fell overnight last night in his bathroom, however, was unable to describe the fall, if he was using an assistive device, and how he got up off the floor. R1 reported pain in his ribs on the left side but no skin alterations were noted at the time. Physician updated and staff requested an x-ray for the left side ribs. -On 7/15/24 at 6:01 p.m., R1 reported pain 7 out of 10 and pain got worse with movement. X-ray was obtained and staff were awaiting results. Physician ordered 25 milligrams (MG) Tramadol twice daily and as needed for pain. -On 7/15/24 at 9:43 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 · D2023-05-24 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide 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 notify the Office of the State Long-Term Ombudsman of transfers for 1 of 1 resident (R22) reviewed for hospitalization. This had the potential to affect any hospitalized resident. Findings include: Progress note dated 2/18/23 at 3:34 p.m., was titled emergency room transfer note and indicated R22 was sent to the hospital for labored breathing, delayed speech, and weakness. The note indicated the medical doctor (MD) and family were notified and the bed hold was signed. The note lacked documentation of Ombudsman notification. The Notice of Residents/Patient Transfer or Discharge attached to the bed hold policy signed and dated 2/18/23 by R22 lacked information indicating the Ombudsman was notified. Progress note dated 2/19/23 at 3:14 p.m., indicated the resident returned to the facility from St. Cloud Hospital. Progress note dated 2/21/23 at 6:00 p.m., titled emergency room transfer note indicated R22 was sent to the hospital on 2/21/23, for slurred speech and left sided weakness. The note indicated the MD and family were…
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.
- No harm found · C2024-08-01 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to accurately post facility staffing hours with the potential to affect all residents and visitors. Findings include: On 7/30/24 at 9:00 a.m., the staff posting was observed in a public area next to a main set of elevators. Review of daily staff posting and schedules showed a discrepancy between hours worked and hours scheduled. The staff posting did not include all hours scheduled and did not have a category for registered nursing (RN). On 7/30/24 at 12:48 p.m., director of nursing (DON) stated the daily staff posting was completed by herself or a health information specialist during the week and by another staff member over the weekend. The DON stated the schedule would be updated and reprinted if a call in or change occurred. The DON confirmed the daily staff posting did not reflect the staff schedule. The DON confirmed the daily staff posting listed all licensed nursing staff as licensed practical nurses (LPN) and did not differentiate between LPN and RN hours. The staff posting did not indicate an RN scheduled…
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.
“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.
- 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 ECUMEN — 5 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECUMEN SBC, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 12/15/2023 |
| ANZEL, JOSEPH | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/12/2019 |
| AUGUSTSON, JEANETTE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/18/2022 |
| BATHEJA, CYRUS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/23/2026 |
| BEAVER, RUSSELL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2025 |
| BERGSTROM, SUSAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/25/2025 |
| CONLIN, JAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/09/2024 |
| FARR, LARRY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/12/2026 |
| FAST, MELINDA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| FEIFAREK, KERI | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| FREY, MARY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/21/2024 |
| GAMST, BLAINE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/04/2024 |
| GETAWEH, SHARLENE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/25/2025 |
| HALEY, TAMI | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2012 |
| HARRISON, DOUGLAS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/16/2025 |
| HOCUM, MARY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| HORSCH, BETSY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| HORVATH, BRIAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/09/2012 |
| ISERMAN, BRENT | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/25/2025 |
| JOHANNES, LORI | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/12/2025 |
| KELLER, KERRI | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/06/2013 |
| KROLAK, JR., THOMAS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/24/2025 |
| KULL, MARCIA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| KWOLIK, CRAIG | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| LAMON, VICKIE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/04/2025 |
| LAXDAL SOMMER, EMILY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/22/2024 |
| LEFFNER, JACQUELINE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| LINN, JOHN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| MCALPINE, JAMES | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| OSMAN, AMAL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| PALMER, TINA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/29/2024 |
| PEDERSON, DIANE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/30/2025 |
| PETRABORG, JOHN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| PLAMANN, JOY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/22/2024 |
| RENO, MARGENE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/09/2025 |
| RICHTER, HAILEY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/18/2024 |
| ROWE, MELISSA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/16/2025 |
| SCHUH, SUSAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| SCHUNA, PETER | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/22/2024 |
| SNYDER, NILS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/21/2024 |
| SOLBERG, TARYN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2026 |
| SPEARMAN, JESSICA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| STEVENS, ANGELA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| THOM, JAMIE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| TURNER, BRENDA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| VANG, KOU | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| VOUK, NANCY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/04/2025 |
| ECUMEN | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/18/2024 |
| ECUMEN SBC OPERATIONS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/16/2025 |
| CHRISTEN, JODY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/10/2025 |
| CONGDON, TAMARA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
| ROATH, ALVIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/15/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 166 rows in the source record cover these 52 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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 245350. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-15, 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.