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

Essentia Health Virginia Care Cent

901 9th Street North, Virginia, MN 55792 · Non profit - Corporation · 40 certified beds · (218) 749-9411 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (218) 749-9411 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • 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)

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.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS
Urgent care / clinic
901 9th St N · (218) 741-3340 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
202 S 2nd Ave W · (218) 749-6333 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
732 4th St N · (218) 741-4663 · Call to confirm hours
Park
901 9th St N · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
720 9th St N

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 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 held steady at 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased30.5%18.2%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.9%4.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.9%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.1%4.1%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.3%4.0%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened39.4%20.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication7.1%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine73.9%96.1%95.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers0.0%5.2%4.7%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control15.7%24.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table16.7%17.1%17.1%typical

* 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.

Staffing

2.15
RN hours/ resident / day
0.54
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.39
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.08
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
1.29
RN hoursweekends
40.7%
Total nursing turnover
16.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 40 beds and averages 16.6 residents a day — about 42% occupied, or roughly 23 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 5.08 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.15 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.39 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.19 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.44 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 2.50 to 1.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-26)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2025-01-09)

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

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

  • Potential for harm · F2026-03-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to date opened products, dispose of expired products, and failed to have a process to ensure stored food was labeled with an expiration date that staff could understand. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 15 residents who received food from facility kitchen.Findings include:During the initial kitchen tour on 3/23/26 at 1:27 p.m., nutrition services manager (NSM) stated products were dated when opened. The following was observed during the tour:Dry storage:6 cans of pasta sauce had no discernible expiration date.6 cans of tomato paste had no discernible expiration date.5 cans of carrots had an expiration date of 12/28/25.Cold storage:In cooler 3, there was an open, undated half gallon of heavy cream.In freezer 1, beef stew tray had no expiration date.Kitchen cooking line:Small fridge on kitchen line had an open, undated liquid egg carton.7 open, undated spices. In addition, there were no discernable expiration dates on 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to only leave medications at bedside when there was order to and the resident wanted to self adminster medications. This affected 1 of 1 residents (R5) reviewed for self administration of medication.Findings include: R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R5 was cognitively intact. Diagnoses included diabetes and cerebral vascular accident (CVA)(stroke). R5's Assessment for Resident Self-Administration of Medications/Treatments dated 3/16/26, indicated R5 did not want to self-administer medications and/or treatments (SAM). R5's Physician Order Report (POR) dated 3/26/26 indicated R5 received acetaminophen 500 milligrams (mg), 2 tablets three times a day by mouth. The POR lacked orders for Tums antacids. No staff were in the room. R5's care plan undated, lacked a care plan related to self-administration of medication. During an observation on 3/23/26 at 2:13 p.m., two tylenol were observed in a medicine cup sitting on…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to wear appropiriate personnal protective equipment (PPE) for a resident on contact precautions. This affected 1 of 1 resident (R11) reviewed for infection control. Findings include: R11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R11 as cognitively intact. R11's diagnoses included ataxia following cerebral infarction, diabetes mellitus type 2, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and legal blindness. R11's care plan revised 2/24/26, identified left eye blepharoconjunctivitis infection: will resolve infection incurred and not spread same to others. It instructed to implement contact precautions. R11's provider orders dated 3/25/26 identified contact precautions through duration of eye drops and duration of left eye symptoms. During dining observations on 3/23/26 at 5:10 p.m., R11's door had an isolation sign on it which indicated R11 was on contact precautions. The sign indicated gown, and gloves had to always be worn…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure nebulizer tubing/canister was cleaned and allowed to air dry after each use for 1 of 1 resident (R16) reviewed for oxygen therapy. Findings include: R16's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R16 had moderate cognitive impairment and diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory failure. R16's provider order dated 4/12/24, identified orders for ipratropium-albuterol solution for nebulizer: 0.5 milligram (mg) - 3mg(2.5mg) base/3mililiter (ml) every four hours as needed for shortness of breath. On 1/6/25 at 1:52 p.m., a nebulizer canister was observed in R16's room. The canister was observed to have condensation built around the inside of the canister with water drops also noted in the base of the canister. There was no date on the canister. R16 stated a nebulizer treatment had not been taken since some time on 1/5/25. On 1/7/25 at 1:42 p.m., a nebulizer canister was again…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-02-28 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded for 4 of 6 residents (R4, R13, R16 and R19) reviewed for resident assessment. Findings include: R4's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], did not identify the following diagnoses hyperlipidemia (excess fat in blood), idiopathic gout (recurrent attacks of [NAME] arthritis in joints), esophageal mass, or atherosclerotic heart disease (narrowing of heart arteries). R4's physician order report, identified R4 was diagnosed with and receiving treatment for hyperlipidemia starting on 4/10/2023, idiopathic gout starting on 6/23/2023, esophageal mass starting on 8/10/2023, and atherosclerotic heart disease starting on 1/6/2023. R13's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], did not identify the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (abnormal heartbeat). Additionally, R13's quarterly MDS did not indicate R13 was taking the high-risk hypoglycemic (lower's blood glucose) medication metformin or the high-risk…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-28 · tag F0636 — isolated
    Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
    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 timely completion of all Minimum Data Set (MDS) sections prior to submission, and to ensure completion of a Care Area Assessments (CAA) worksheet for a significant change in condition assessment (SCSA) for 1 of 6 (R5) residents reviewed for MDS completion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2023, identified section C's intention was to determine the resident's attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall new information. These items were crucial factors in making care planning decisions. The Manual identified section F's intention was to obtain information regarding the resident's preferences or his or her daily routine and activities. Nursing homes should use this as a guide to create an individualized plan for the resident's preferences. Care Areas are triggered by MDS item responses that indicated the need for additional assessment based on…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan to reflect resident preferences for 1 of 2 residents (R5) reviewed for care planning. Findings include: R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R5 was rarely if ever understood and had diagnoses of dementia and congestive heart failure. R5 was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs) and was non-ambulatory. R5's care plan dated 1/9/24 identified it was important to R5 to be awake at 9 a.m. During a continuous observation on 2/27/24 starting at 8:09 a.m. to 10:42 a.m., R5 was in bed sleeping with the covers on. During this time staff were not observed to enter the room. During an observation on 2/27/24 at 10:42 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-B and NA-A worked together to provide R5 with a bed bath, dressing and grooming. R5 was not resistive to the care throughout this observation. During an interview on 2/28/24 at 9:08 a.m., NA-A stated R5 used to have breakfast,…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-28 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow care plan interventions for pressure ulcer prevention and wheelchair positioning for 1 of 3 residents (R5) reviewed for pressure ulcer care and prevention. Findings include: R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R5 was rarely if ever understood and had diagnoses of dementia, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic peripheral vascular disease, pre-diabetes, and morbid obesity. R5 was dependent on staff for bed mobility, hygiene, incontinent care, transfers and was at risk for pressure ulcer development. R5's care plan dated 9/2/19, identified R5 was at risk for alteration in skin integrity related to her Braden (a skin risk-assessment) score, impaired mobility, and incontinence. Interventions included licensed nurses to do weekly skin assessments, to provide a foam mattress, encourage turning and repositioning, clean and dry skin promptly after incontinent episodes, perform Braden assessment quarterly, turn…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-28 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    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 a rationale was documented for the extended order of an as needed (PRN) psychotropic (effecting the chemical makeup of the brain) medication beyond 14 days for 1 of 5 residents (R19) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: R19's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R19 was severely cognitively impaired and had diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of endometrium (cancer that begins in the lining of the uterus) and glaucoma. R19's care plan last revised on 2/27/24, identified diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus, malignant neoplasm of endometrium, hyperlipidemia, depression, and glaucoma. R19's physician orders dated 1/15/24, identified lorazepam (antianxiety medication) oral tablet 0.5 milligrams (mg) 1/2 tablet dose of 0.25 mg give by mouth every 4 hours PRN anxiety. Order did not have rationale to extend beyond 14 days, nor did it have an end date from the provider. Attempted to reach…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to ESSENTIA HEALTH — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 54.3+0.7 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.5+0.5 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 55.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
The other 5 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 / managerTypeRoleSince
SMDC MEDICAL CENTEROrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 07/01/2012
ESSENTIA HEALTHOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/28/2012
ARONSON NORR, NANCYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
BACHAND, ADAMIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
BALDWIN, JANIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2017
BERGSTROM, AMYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
DUININCK, TROYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2023
JAMAR, THOMASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2023
LOBAN, GEORGEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
RAWAY, BEVERLYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 10/01/2018
SERTICH, ANTHONYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2021
URBANSKI, REBECCAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
WEBER, JEANNEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 02/15/2019
YUNG, ANTHONYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
BEARD, BRADLEYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2023
BOREN, KEVINIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2023
BORTNEM, MARKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/29/2025
SKORUPA, KRISTAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 05/06/2024
WATTERS, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/01/2023
ST MARYS DULUTH CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEMOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/28/2012
MEYER, DEBORAHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/09/2023
OMAN, MICHELLEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 22 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.

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.

What families pay in MN

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Minnesota Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Minnesota
$10,646/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$13,870/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,573/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 245458. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-26, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next