St John Lutheran Home
201 South County Road 5, Springfield, MN 56087 · Non profit - Church related · 65 certified beds · (507) 723-3200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 20.0% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.9% | 4.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.2% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.5% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.0% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.4% | 20.5% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.8% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 5.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.8% | 24.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.4% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.8% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 82.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.7% | 23.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.0% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.81 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.35 | 1.90 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
55.4% 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 47 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.0% 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 37 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 34% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 55.4%CMS range 43.5–65.6 | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 6.1–14.8 | 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 | 73.0% | 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 | 59.5% | 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 | 62.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 4.5% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 3.8–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 65 beds and averages 48.5 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 16 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 3.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.82 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.60 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 3.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.02 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.97 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-06-03 · 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 ensure kitchen and walk-in cooler was clean and free of food-like debris. In addition, kitchen staff failed to consistently log dishwasher temps to ensure proper sanitation and failed to date meat when placed in the walk-in cooler to thaw. This had the potential to affect all 51 residents. Findings include: FOOD STORAGE/KITCHEN CLEANLINESSObservation on 6/1/26 at 10:55 a.m., in the kitchen identified:The stove-top had food crumbs and a dried liquid on and between the burners and the wall behind the stove had food debris splashed upon the wall. A utility box mounted on the wall to the right of the stove was covered with a heavy layer of dust, mixed with food particles.A food prep counter near the sink had a radio that was covered in dust and food debris splatter.The office area connected to the kitchen had a countertop with a microwave, toaster, open partially used container of peanut butter, a large partially used plastic container of butter, and half of a loaf of bread. The countertop also had phone…
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 · F2026-06-03 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
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 data submitted to the Quality Assurance Program Improvement (QAPI) committee was analyzed and documented to ensure areas identified had oversight for their perspective outcomes brought forth. This had the potential to affect all 51 residents. Findings include: Review of the designated quarterly QAPI meetings from June 2025 through April 2026 identified facility departments were submitting data for review by the committee, but the minutes lacked evidence of measurable goals, discussion of the data submitted, and a plan of action for improvement. Examples included:The June 18, 2025, QAPI meeting minutes identified the facility monitored areas such as:Falls: 13 falls occurred, which was down from the previous month with 4 residents (unknown) having repeated falls. The goal was to decrease falls. There were no major injuries noted with actions to continue to review each fall and new intervention in place. There was no indication who the residents…
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 · D2026-06-03 · 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
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to follow physician orders to measure a pressure ulcer weekly and follow their policy and procedure on documenting pressure ulcer care for 1 of 1 sampled resident (R8).Findings include: R8's quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, accepted on 5/19/26 identified R8's cognition was moderately impaired, and she required substantial assistance with care, bed mobility and transfers. R8 had a life expectancy of 6 months or less and was on hospice. R8 had pain and within the assessment period, had reported her pain was severe. R8 took scheduled pain medication and as-needed pain medication. R8 was identified as having a Stage 2 pressure ulcer with a pressure relieving device in her chair and on the bed. Observation and interview on 6/2/26 at 8:55 a.m., with registered nurse (RN)-A who performed a dressing change to R8's thoracic spine identified RN-A removed the old dressing and cleansed the area. The wound measured 0.7 centimeters (cm) x 0.4 cm. RN-A described the wound as superficial with a red wound bed and well-defined…
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 · D2026-06-03 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to perform antibiotic stewardship to include a system for monitoring and reducing antibiotic resistance. In addition, the facility failed to follow their policy on antibiotic stewardship and conduct an antibiotic timeout (ATO) for 1 of 3 sampled residents (R52). Findings include: Review of the current, undated, Centers for Disease Control (CDC): The Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship for Nursing Homes, Appendix A: Policy and Practice Actions to Improve Antibiotic Use, located at https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/pdfs/core-elements-antibiotic-stewardship-appendix-a-508.pdf, identified facilities should evaluate the clinical signs and symptoms when a resident is first suspected of having an infection. Once the resident is placed on an antibiotic, they should be comprehensively reviewed within 48-72 hours after starting the medication to ensure they have been prescribed an effective medication. This is accomplished by reviewing the resident current symptoms and any laboratory results to identify medication…
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 · F2025-05-14 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure the kitchen ceiling tiles were kept in a clean and sanitary manner and free of dust and debris. This had the potential to affect all 46 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 5/13/25 at 9:08 a.m., two ceiling tiles located approximately six feet from the steam table were observed with gray, fuzzy material hanging from them. Directly beneath these ceiling tiles were two metal meal carts. At the time of observation, cook (C)-A was interviewed and confirmed the presence of the gray fuzzy material on the ceiling tiles, acknowledging the condition was unclean and unacceptable. C-A stated that kitchen staff were responsible for cleaning the ceiling tiles and further confirmed that plated food trays were placed on the metal carts located under the affected ceiling area before being delivered to residents. On 5/13/25 at 10:45 a.m., dietary aide (DA)-A was observed placing plated food onto meal trays located on metal carts situated directly beneath the ceiling tiles with visible gray…
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 · Ecited before2025-05-14 · 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 During an interview on 5/13/25 at 1:11 p.m., on first floor, NA-A stated staff carried soiled laundry, including resident clothing, bed linens and towels, from resident rooms by hand, down the hallway to a hamper in the tub room if it was soiled resident clothing, or the utility room if it was soiled bed linens or towels. NA-A stated she would do this even if there were a small amount of BM (bowel movement) on the laundry. NA-A stated staff did not place soiled laundry in bags first before carrying it to the hampers. NA-A stated she was careful not to let soiled laundry touch her uniform. Further, NA-A stated she had done that as long as she had worked at the facility. Review of NA-A's orientation checklist dated 8/9/24, did not include instruction on transporting soiled laundry. During an interview on 5/13/25 at 1:29 p.m., on second floor, NA-F stated soiled laundry was carried by hand to either the utility room or tub room, such as resident clothing, towels, washcloths and bed linen. NA-F stated soiled laundry…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to include of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) triggers and interventions for 2 of 2 residents (R10 and R23) who had a diagnosis of PTSD. Findings include: R23's face sheet printed 5/14/25, included diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (progressive neurodegenerative disorder that affects movement), psychological trauma, dementia, and major depressive disorder. R23's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R23 had moderate cognitive impairment, no behaviors and required moderate assist to stand, toileting substantial to maximal assist of 1 and was able to walk 150 feet with touching and standby by assist. PTSD was not checked as an active diagnosis. Medications included antipsychotic and antidepressant use. R23's plan of care dated 8/6/24, included a potential for mood deficit related to dementia, Parkinson's disease, depression and anxiety. Interventions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of measured weights for 1 of 1 resident (R29) reviewed for nutrition. Findings include: R29's face sheet printed on 5/14/25, included diagnoses of diabetes, high blood pressure, and history of stroke. R29's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated severe cognitive impairment, clear speech, could understand and be understood. No weight loss and no difficulty swallowing. R29 required substantial assistance or was dependent upon staff for activities of daily living. R29's physician orders dated 12/12/23, indicated regular diet. R29 was not on a diuretic (a medication that increases urine output). R29's care plan dated 3/26/25, indicated R29 had an altered nutritional status related to diabetes and history of stroke. A goal for R29 dated 3/15/24, indicated R29 would have stable weights by estimated date of 6/24/25. Intervention dated 12/18/23, indicated to monitor weight and intake. (The frequency was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-14 · 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 Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure staff were following manufacturer's guidelines with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine with daily maintenance and weekly cleaning for 1 of 1 resident (R23) reviewed for respiratory care and treatments. Findings include: R23's face sheet printed 5/14/25, included diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (progressive neurodegenerative disorder that affects movement), and obstructive sleep apnea (breathing repeatedly stops or become significantly reduced during sleep often due to collapse of the upper airway). R23's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R23 had moderate cognitive impairment, and required moderate assist to stand, toileting substantial to maximal assist of 1 and was able to walk 150 feet with touching and standby by assist. Special treatments included CPAP. R23's plan of care dated 3/11/24, did not include a respiratory plan of care or the use of a CPAP machine. R23's physician…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-14 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and record review the facility failed to identify and document the trauma-related history, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), known triggers and lacked a system or process for completing trauma assessments for 2 of 2 residents (R10 and R23) with a known history of PTSD. Findings include: R23's face sheet printed 5/14/25, included diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (progressive neurodegenerative disorder that affects movement), psychological trauma, dementia, and major depressive disorder. R23's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R23 had moderate cognitive impairment, no behaviors and required moderate assist to stand, toileting substantial to maximal assist of 1 and was able to walk 150 feet with touching and standby by assist. PTSD was not checked as an active diagnosis. Medications included antipsychotic and antidepressant use. R23's plan of care dated 8/6/24, included a potential for mood deficit related to dementia, Parkinson's disease, depression and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-17 · 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 manufacturer's instructions for cleaning and sanitizing 1 of 1 ice machines used for resident consumption. This had the potential to affect all 49 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: During an observation on 4/16/24 at 10:39 a.m., noted a Manitowoc brand, counter-top style ice machine in the first floor resident ice machine. During an interview on 4/15/24 at 11:35 a.m., dietary supervisor (DS)-B stated dietary staff wiped down the outside of the ice machine located in the first-floor dining room but did not clean the inside. During an interview on 4/17/24 at 11:17 a.m., dietary aide (DA)-A stated she cleaned the ice machine using hot water and a long narrow brush to clean a long, narrow PVC pipe laying horizontal alongside the bottom of the ice machine. DA-A stated dietary staff did not clean the inside of the ice machine; didn't empty out the ice or do anything else to it. DA-A verified the ice machine was used for resident consumption. Reviewed Manitowoc ice machine Use & Care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure basic infection control measures were followed when 1 of 1 resident (R41's) urinary drainage bag was observed resting on the floor. Findings include: R41's diagnosis list printed on 4/17/24, included history of pulmonary emboli (when arteries are blocked by a blood clot). R41's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated severe cognitive impairment and dependency upon staff for most activities of daily living. R41's physician orders dated 9/8/23, indicated indwelling urinary catheter. R41's care plan dated 9/15/23, indicated Foley (describes the type of catheter) catheter management per MD (medical doctor) orders and facility protocol. During an observation on 4/15/24 at 1:39 p.m., observed R41's urinary drainage bag hooked to the side pocket of his cloth recliner, resulting in the bottom of the bag, including the urinary drainage valve, to rest on the floor. During an observation on 4/16/24 at 8:18 a.m., R41 was in his…
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 · B2024-04-17 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure written transfer notices were provided to the resident or resident representative following a facility-initiated transfer to the hospital for 2 of 2 residents (R25, R28) reviewed for hospitalization. This had the potential to affect all 49 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: R25's Record of admission printed 4/17/24, included diagnoses of urinary tract infection, hydronephrosis (excess urine accumulation in kidney causing swelling the kidney) and hypertensive chronic kidney disease (high blood pressure causing kidney damage) R25's readmission Minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R25 had mild cognitive impairment but understands and is understood. During interview on 4/15/24 at 12:50 p.m., R25 indicated she was recently in the hospital and did not remember being given any paper work prior to her transfer there. R25 indicated she had a urinary tract infection prior to going to the hospital. A progress note dated 4/2/24…
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.
- No harm found · B2024-04-17 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 provide notification to the resident and/or resident representative of the facility's bed hold policy at the time of an emergency transfer for 2 of 2 residents (R25, R28) who were transferred to an acute care facility on an emergency basis. Findings include: R25's Record of admission printed 4/17/24, included diagnoses of urinary tract infection, hydronephrosis (excess urine accumulation in kidney causing swelling the kidney) and hypertensive chronic kidney disease (high blood pressure causing kidney damage) R25's readmission Minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R25 had mild cognitive impairment but understands and is understood. A progress note, dated 4/2/24, by registered nurse (RN)-B indicated R25 was sent to a local hospital via ambulance at 2:20 p.m. and returned to the facility on 4/5/24 at 3:15 p.m. R25's medical record lacked evidence a Bed Hold policy was shared with R25 or her representative at the time of transfer. During…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASMUS, JUSTIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
| BEYER, LINDSEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/23/2022 |
| GROFF, JANET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
| LERNER, BRACEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
| MATTSON, TRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
| MEINE, MAXINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
| MEYER, WILLIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
| ROSALES, MELISSA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/23/2022 |
| VOGE, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
| WELLNER, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
| WENDT, PAMELA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/23/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Minnesota Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 245407. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-03, 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.