Cerenity Marian Of St Paul LLC
200 Earl Street, Saint Paul, MN 55106 · Non profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (651) 793-2100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $131,578 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-06)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 1 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 | 23.7% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.5% | 4.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 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 | 3.8% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.7% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.9% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.6% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.2% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.5% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.9% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.5% | 82.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.4% | 23.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.5% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.91 | 1.61 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.29 | 1.90 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
62.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 117 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 47.2% 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 53 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 0.56 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 62.7%CMS range 52.7–70.3 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 7.8–15.8 | 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 | 47.2% | 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 | 50.9% | 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 | 26.4% | 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 | 91.2% | 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 | 95.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.1%CMS range 3.8–11.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.75 | 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 90 beds and averages 72.0 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.15 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.14 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 3.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.35 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.30 to 0.76 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-08-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to provide safe transfers according to the care plan, to prevent or mitigate risk of falls and/or falls with major injury, for 4 of 4 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4) who required staff assistance to transfer. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R1 when she suffered an ankle fracture during a transfer. The IJ began on 7/29/24 when NA-A did not follow R1's care plan to use a standing lift (EZ-Stand) for transfers, R1 became weak and was assisted to the floor resulting in R1's ankle fracture and probable posterior malleolar fracture. The Administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the immediate jeopardy on 8/15/24 at 3:19 p.m. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 8/15/24 but noncompliance remained at a lower scope and severity of a D with no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that was not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: R1's Face Sheet dated 8/24/22, identified R1 had diagnoses that included…
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.
- Actual harm · G2025-02-06 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 medications were administered per physicians' orders for 2 of 2 (R6, R150) residents reviewed for medication errors. This resulted in significant medication errors and actual harm when R6 received the wrong medications resulting emergent care and hospitalization for hypotension (low blood pressure), lethargy, and possible aspiration. Findings include: R6's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicate R6 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses of dementia, depression and high blood pressure. Furthermore, R6's MDS indicated R6 did not take narcotic medications. R6's Safety Events- Medication Error report dated 2/2/25, indicated R6 received R229's medications. The medications R6 received in error included the following: -Methadone (narcotic pain medication) 2.5 milligrams (mg) -gabapentin (medication to treat nerve pain) 900mg -omeprazole (medication to prevent acid reflux) 20mg -senna (medication to prevent constipation) 2…
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 before2026-03-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of potential hazards for 1 of 1 resident (R56) found to have a space heater operating in their room.Findings include:R56's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderately impaired cognition and no behaviors. R56 was independent with transfers and ambulation. Diagnoses included cardiopulmonary disease (heart and lung disease), diabetes and cataracts, glaucoma or macular degeneration (eye conditions that cause loss of vision).R56's Mood State care plan dated 3/12/26, identified she had a sleep pattern disturbance related to insomnia and to evaluate her room for noise, darkness, temperature and comfort.During an observation and interview on 3/16/26 at 7:42 a.m., R56 stated her room was too cool and she used a space heater provided to her from nursing. On the laminate style floor was a [NAME] brand with model number HFH610 space heater set at 84 degrees on the digital reading. The space…
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 · D2026-03-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY During observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure supplemental oxygen was properly maintained for 1 of 1 resident (R40) reviewed for oxygen. Findings include: R40's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition and diagnoses of chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygenation) and was dependent on supplemental oxygen. R40's physician's orders indicated the following:-on 5/22/25, R40 required continuous oxygen-wean as able per nasal cannula to keep oxygen saturation greater than or equal to 90%. Oxygen at 1 LPM every shift.-on 10/1/25, order directed staff to change and date an oxygen humidifying jar monthly.R40's treatment administration record (TAR) dated 3/2026, indicated R40's humidifying jar was last changed on 3/1/26 and oxygen tubing was changed on 3/12/26.R40's Care plan dated 1/28/25, indicated R40 had ineffective breathing patterns related to chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, dysphagia (problems swallowing) with aspiration risk.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-02-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 record review the facility failed to ensure dishwasher temperatures were within range to ensure resident dishes were sanitized for 3 of 3 kitchenettes located on resident units. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure expired milk was removed from 1 of 3 kitchenettes (3rd floor) and clean resident dishes were stored to prevent contamination from dust/debris for 1 of 3 kitchenettes located on resident units (4th floor). This had the potential to impact all residents who reside in the facility. Findings include: A facility document titled 3rd and 4th floor Dish Machine from Ecolab dated 2024, indicated the operating temperatures were a minimum wash temperature of 155 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and a minimum rinse temperature of 180 degrees F. A facility document titled 5th floor Dish Machine from Ecolab dated 2018, indicated the operating temperatures were a minimum wash temperature of 150 degrees F and a minimum rinse temperature of 180 degrees F. 4th floor Kitchenette A facility document titled Dish Machine Temperature Log 4th floor dated 2/2025,…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to report an incident involving a fall was immediately reported to the supervisor according to the facility abuse policy for 1 of 4 residents (R1) who suffered a fracture during an unsafe transfer that caused a delay in care and treatment for over 12 hours. Finding include: During interview on 8/14/24 at 1:29 p.m., R1 reported being transferred incorrectly on 7/29/24 in the shower causing her to fall; she landed on her butt with her right leg and ankle underneath herself. R1 screamed in pain and told staff she was hurt. R1 was unable to identify staff as she reported being legally blind and was not provided her hearing aids prior to the transfer. R1 reported it took a whole other day to get anyone to look at it. R1's quarterly MDS (minimum data set) dated 6/20/24, identified R1 as cognitively intact, moderate difficulty with hearing and requires the use of a hearing aids. R1 had highly impaired vision. Tub/shower transfer was not assessed (N/A). R1 required substantial/maximal assistants taking off and putting on footwear.…
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 · F2024-04-18 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 provide sufficient staffing to ensure residents received care and assistance they needed. This had the potential to affect all 82 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: The 2023 Annual Facility Assessment updated October 2, 2023, indicated the facility could serve 90 residents and had an average census of 73 residents. The service and care offered based upon the needs of those served included activities of daily living (ADL) support, bowel and bladder care and toileting support, coordination of care with physician and other health care providers, end of life care, fall prevention, infection prevention, medication administration, mobility assistance, nutrition support and pain management. Additionally, had an average of 24 FTE (full time equivalent) nursing staff at full census/pay period including the director of nursing (DON), assistant DON (ADON), clinical managers, Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse, licensed nurses,…
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 · E2024-04-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was completed for 2 of 2 residents (R42, R1) and failed to ensure proper personal protective equipment (PPE) for 2 of 2 residents (R18, R1) observed for contact precautions and enhanced barrier precautions and failed to ensure proper cleaning of a mechanical lift following use was completed for 1 of 1 resident (R42) Findings include: R18's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated moderate cognitive impairment, did not have behaviors and did not reject care, required substantial assistance with toileting and hygiene, partial to moderate assist with bathing, dressing, substantial assist for standing and transfering, was not on a toileting program, and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. R18's Face Sheet form dated 4/15/24, indicated the following diagnoses: viral intestinal infection, repeated falls, gastro esophageal reflux disease with esophagitis without bleeding. A form provided…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a self administration of medication assessment (SAM) was completed to allow residents to safely administer their own medications for 3 of 3 residents (R70, R11, R52). Findings include: R70's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, required set up or clean up assist for eating, oral hygiene, and required supervision for upper body dressing, partial assist for lower body dressing and supervision for personal hygiene. R70's Face Sheet form dated [DATE], indicated R70 had the following current diagnoses: metabolic encephalopathy, hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure and stage 1 through stage 4 chronic kidney disease, or unspecified chronic kidney disease, cognitive communication deficit. R70's physician orders were reviewed and lacked an order to self administer medications. An order was later added on [DATE], Ok for daily medications to be left with resident to take…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide timely activity of daily living (ADL) assistance for 2 of 2 residents (R9, R38) who required staff assistance to make it out to meals. Findings include: A form, Meal Times, indicated an open breakfast from 7:30 a.m., until 9:00 a.m., and lunch was served at 11:30 a.m., on the 4th and 5th floors and at 12:00 p.m., on the 3rd floor. Dinner was served at 4:30 p.m., on the 4th and 5th floors and at 5:00 p.m., on the 3rd floor. Forms, NAR Group Sheet 1, NAR Group Sheet 2, NAR Group Sheet 3, indicated the following, mealtime reminder: must count the meal tickets to make sure that all residents have eaten, please reapproach three times and notify the nurse if a resident refuses cares. R9's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R9 had intact cognition, did not have physical, verbal, or other behaviors, and did not reject cares, required set up or clean up assistance with eating, substantial to maximum assistance 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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 provide timely referral to an outside optometry service to resolve broken eyeglasses and provide a routine follow up appointment for 1 of 1 resident (R9) reviewed whose glasses were broken. Findings include: R9's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R9 had intact cognition, had adequate vision including fine detail, including regular print in newspapers and books with glasses or other visual appliances and did not wear corrective lenses. R9's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated R9 had adequate vision and wore corrective lenses, and it was very important to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read. R9's state optional assessment dated [DATE], indicated R9 required extensive assist for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and was independent with eating. R9's progress notes were reviewed on 4/17/24 at 2:59 p.m., and lacked documentation of any refusals of eye exams after 8/22/22. R9's care plan dated 4/16/24,…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 interventions were in place for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: R183's Brief Interview & Staff Assessment for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 4/9/24, indicated R183 had moderate cognitive impairment. R183's Continuity of Care document printed 4/18/24, indicated R183's diagnoses included pressure ulcer of right heel and lymphedema. R183's Functional Abilities assessment dated [DATE], indicated R183 required substantial/maximal assistance with putting on/taking off footwear and sit to stand performance. R183's admission body audit/skin condition assessment dated [DATE], indicated R183 had a right heel wound. R183's Skin Risk Observation with Braden Scale dated 4/8/24, indicated R183 had an unhealed pressure injury on right lower heal and at risk for further skin breakdown. The assessment identified interventions which included heel protectors. R183's provider orders included the following: 4/8/24-Out of…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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 document review, the facility failed to ensure use of a bed pan and urinal were offered and in place for 1 of 2 residents (R38) in accordance with the individualized care plan. Findings include: R38's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated mild cognitive impairment, did not have behaviors, did not reject cares, had upper and lower extremity impairment on one side, required supervision or touching assistance for toileting hygiene, partial to moderate assistance with upper and lower body dressing, personal hygiene, was not on a toileting program for bowels or bladder, and was frequently incontinent of bladder and bowel. R38's Face Sheet form dated 4/17/24, indicated R38 had the following diagnoses: hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting the left non dominant side, unspecified dementia, ataxia (lack of muscle coordination) following cerebral infarction, dysphagia (difficulty…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet as prescribed and failed to ensure adequate hydration in accordance with the individualized care plan for 1 of 2 residents (R38). Findings include: R38's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated mild cognitive impairment, did not have behaviors, did not reject cares, had upper and lower extremity impairment on one side, required supervision or touching assistance for toileting hygiene, partial to moderate assistance with upper and lower body dressing, personal hygiene, and required set up or clean up assistance for eating. The MDS further indicated R38 was on a therapeutic diet. R38's Face Sheet form dated 4/17/24, indicated R38 had the following diagnoses: hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting the left non dominant side, unspecified dementia, ataxia (lack of muscle coordination) following cerebral infarction,…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 food was served at warm, palatable temperatures for 3 of 3 residents (R9, R64, R50). Findings include: R9's quarterly Minimum Data Sets (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R9 had intact cognition, did not have physical, verbal, or other behaviors, and did not reject cares, required set up or clean up assistance with eating, substantial to maximum assistance with showering/bathing, partial to moderate assistance with upper body dressing, personal hygiene, and was dependent on staff for lower body dressing, chair to bed and bed to chair transfers, and required substantial to maximum assistance with sitting to standing. R9's physician orders indicated the following order: • 12/18/23, RG7 (normal everyday foods of various textures that are developmentally and age appropriate. Biting and chewing ability needed.) regular texture cardiac less than 2400 milligrams (MG) of sodium diet and thin liquids. R9's Face Sheet form dated 4/17/24,…
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 before2024-04-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 label, date and store food in a sanitary manner to prevent food borne illness for food brought into the facility by a resident, family or guest. In addition, the facility failed to properly label, date and store meal trays held after meal service for 2 of 2 meal trays. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 3 of 3 residents residing on the fifth floor. Findings include: During observations on 4/15/24, at 12:40 p.m., a small glass containing orange liquid was sitting on R3's bedside table. Additionally, an open jar of salsa was observed sitting on the windowsill. At 4:43 p.m., R3 was observed in his room, and the glass that had contained the orange liquid was empty and R3 stated it was from his breakfast that morning and he drank it when he came back from an appointment at approximately 4:00 p.m. During subsequent observations between 4/15/24 at 2:03 p.m., and 4/17/24 at 07:43 a.m., the jar of open salsa remained on R3's windowsill. During tour of fifth floor kitchenette, and interview 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.
“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
$131,578 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $39,454 — penalty dated 2025-02-06
- $92,124 — penalty dated 2024-08-16
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CERENITY SENIOR CARE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/15/2017 |
| BENEDICTINE HEALTH SYSTEM | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 50% | since 12/15/2017 |
| FAIRVIEW BETHESDA HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 12/15/2017 |
| SCHUMACHER, KAY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/15/2018 |
| CARLEY, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/02/2018 |
| FOUSSARD, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/24/2010 |
| GRZYWINSKI, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/13/2014 |
| KSEPKA, DAWN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/13/2013 |
| LUNDBERG, JONATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| BERGIEN, TRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/16/2016 |
| BRUHN, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/25/2019 |
| RYMANOWSKI, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2005 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 12 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 $1.2M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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
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
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 245365. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-18, 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.