Lake Minnetonka Shores
4527 Shoreline Drive, Spring Park, MN 55384 · Non profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (952) 471-4001 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $8,827 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-25)
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 21.4% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 4.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 1.9% | 0.9% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.3% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.7% | 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 | 6.6% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 35.4% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.1% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.6% | 96.1% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.5% | 24.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.2% | 17.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.4% | 82.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 35.3% | 23.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.5% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.22 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.53 | 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.
50.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 91 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 78.6% 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 42 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 75% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 50.1%CMS range 40.6–58.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 6.8–16.4 | 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 | 78.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 64.3% | 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 | 26.2% | 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 | 98.0% | 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 | 95.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 2.0% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 4.1–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.69 | 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 60 beds and averages 54.2 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.26 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.31 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.51 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 3.99 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.37 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.41 to 1.07 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-04-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident advanced directives were accurately documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) and physician orders to ensure their wishes would be followed in the event of a cardiac arrest for 1 of 24 residents (R158) reviewed for advanced directives. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) began on [DATE] when R158 completed an updated Physician's Orders For Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to change code status to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and was identified on [DATE]. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the immediate jeopardy at 12:18 p.m. on [DATE]. The immediate jeopardy was removed on [DATE] but noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity level D, which indicated no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: R158's EMR banner in Point Click Care (PCC) reviewed on [DATE] at 7:07 p.m., identified R158 was full code, meaning chest compressions…
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 · F2024-04-25 · 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 document review, the facility failed to follow food safety guidelines to thaw raw chicken to prevent the spread of cross-contamination. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene was performed for 1 of 1 staff observed preparing food in the kitchen. These deficient practices had the potential to affect all 57 residents who ate in the facility. Findings include: During a kitchen observation on 4/25/24 at 11:55 a.m., cook-A stated chicken was being thawed for supper. Cook-A was working at a two-compartment stainless steel prep sink, and the right-side sink compartment was approximately 75% full of cloudy, pink-gray water, with cold water running from the faucet into the cloudy water, and the contents of the sink were not visible. A stainless draining pan, positioned over the left-side sink compartment, contained approximately 12 pieces of boneless, skinless chicken pieces. However, no water was running over the raw chicken in the left-side compartment. Cook-A submerged gloved hands passed the wristband of the gloves into the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 all medications and biologicals were locked in compartments which only allowed authorized personnel to have access. This had the potential to affect all the residents residing on the third floor of the facility. Findings include: During continuous observation on 4/23/24 from 3:10 p.m. until 3:50 p.m. medication cart 1 on third floor remained unlocked. Registered nurse (RN)-C left the cart unlocked and out of eyesight at 3:10 p.m., 3:19 p.m., 3:28 p.m., 3:34 p.m., 3:41 p.m. to complete medication passes. During this time residents, visitors and unlicensed staff walked by the unattended cart. On 4/23/24 at 3:50 p.m., the clinical coordinator (RN)-A approached the medication cart, and locked the cart when RN-C was not present. On 4/24/24 at 4:12 p.m., RN-C stated the cart should have been locked when left unattended and out of eyesight. On 4/23/24 at 4:19 p.m., the clinical coordinator RN-A stated staff were expected to lock the medication cart when unattended and out of their view. RN-A stated this was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-25 · 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 proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for contact precautions. This had the potential to affect all 57 residents, staff and visitors. Findings include: R1's wound culture lab collected 4/2/24, indicated resident's right foot wound was infected with methicillin-reistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Lab report included MRSA required contact precautions. R1's diagnosis report printed 4/25/24, included diagnoses of non-pressure chronic ulcer of other parts of left foot, non-pressure chronic ulcer of other parts of right foot, and dementia. R1's order summary report printed 4/25/24, included an order for wound care on right lateral foot. Clean with normal saline. Cover heel and medial wound with foam dressing. Observation on 4/24/24 at 7:13 a.m., license practical nurse (LPN)-C completed wound care on R1. LPN-C donned PPE outside of R1's room. PPE included a short sleeve, fabric gown tied around neck and disposable gloves. LPN-C cleansed wound by squirting normal…
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 · D2024-04-25 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop 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 2 of 5 residents (R1, R17) reviewed for immunizations were offered and/or provided the pneumococcal vaccine series as recommended by the Center 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. R1's admission record printed 4/25/24, indicated an age of 90 and diagnoses of severe protein-calorie malnutrition, immunodeficiency, and type 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 · D2023-08-24 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 resident private care needs and therapy information was kept private for 3 of 3 residents (R354, R352, R302) who were receiving occupational therapy (OT) services. Findings include: R354's care plan dated 8/16/23 indicated R354 received OT services and required staff assistance with grooming and hygiene. R352's care plan dated 8/15/23 indicated R352 received OT services and required staff assistance with grooming, hygiene, and transfers. R302's care plan dated 8/17/23 indicated R302 received OT services and required staff assistance with grooming, hygiene, and transfers. On 8/21/23 at 3:12 p.m., a laminated, colorful, 8x10 sign was posted on the outside of R354's door. The sign indicated R354's name, room number, time and date of OT appointment, personal cares to be completed with OT and personal cares to be completed by nursing. On 8/21/23 at 3:12 pm p.m., an identical OT sign was posted on the outside of R352's door and was visible to anyone walking in the hallway. On 8/22/23 at 3:46 p.m., an OT…
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 · D2023-08-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 1 of 1 residents (R5) and/or resident representative(s) were included in the comprehensive care planning reviewed for participation of care. Findings include: R(5)'s quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated fully intact cognition (able to fully understand), Diagnoses included medically complex conditions (more than one complicated medical diagnosis), hypertension (High blood pressure), Dementia (reduced brain function), depression (Feeling sad), and asthma (reduced airway function in lung tubes). On 8/23/23 at 12:40 p.m., R5 stated she did not recall having a care planning conference in the last year and would consider going if invited. R5 electronic health record (EHR) indicated MDS completed on 5/8/23. However, lacked documentation a care conference occurred which included R32 or his responsible representative for previous 4 quarters, since 5/4/22. On 8/23/23 at 12:45 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN)-B stated residents were offered…
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 · D2023-08-24 · 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 documentation review the facility failed to provide assistance with facial hair removal for 1 of 1 residents (R26) with grooming needs who was dependent upon staff for assistance. Findings include: R26 Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition and diagnoses of coronary artery disease, hypertension, osteoporosis, and spinal stenosis. R26's care plan indicated R26 was an assist of one staff with personal cares. On 8/22/23 at 3:14 p.m., R26 was observed in bed with one to one and half inch of neck hair to trachea area and down from his ears to the top of his shoulder area on both sides of neck. On 8/23/23 at 7:04 a.m., R26 was observed in bed, awake looking out the window. R26 had hair on the neck that was not shaved. On 8/23/23 at 7:10 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-D was observed doing cares for R26 and did not shave his face or neck. On 8/23/23 at 10:01 a.m., NA-D stated R26 had one half inch to two inches in length on the sides of his neck. NA-D stated…
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 · C2024-04-25 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the required staffing information was posted daily. This had the potential to affect all 57 residents residing in the facility, staff and visitors who may wish to view this information. Findings include: During review of the staff posting documentation from 3/24/24 through 4/25/24, the facility failed to provide evidence of staff postings for the following dates: 3/24/24, 3/30/24, 3/31/24, 4/3/24, 4/6/24, 4/7/24, 4/13/24, 4/14/24, 4/21/24. On 4/24/24 at 3:11 p.m., the administrator acknowledged the facility had not completed nor posted the staffing information daily. On 4/25/24 at 11:22 a.m., the staffing coordinator (O)-D stated staffing information needed to be posted and updated daily. On 4/25/24 at 12:07 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) and the administrator stated staff postings were expected to be completed every day and was important to have the information available to those who wished to view it, and to ensure enough staff were on site. The facility's Nurse Hours Posting Policy, last modified in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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
$8,827 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,827 — penalty dated 2024-04-25
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES — 21 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.9 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 20 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRESBYTERIAN HOMES HOUSING AND ASSISTED LIVING, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 04/14/2010 |
| NORTHEAST BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 06/03/2014 |
| FLETCHER, JONATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| MEYER, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/14/2010 |
| PEDERSON, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| PHS MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/11/2011 |
| MIELKE, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/29/2019 |
| SOKOLOSKI, SHAYLEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/11/2019 |
| PETERSON, HEIDI | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/12/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.1M 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 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 245210. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-03, 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.