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

Lakeshore Rehabilitation Center LLC

108 8th Street Northwest, Waseca, MN 56093 · For profit - Corporation · 52 certified beds · (507) 835-2800 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (507) 835-2800 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 (4/5)

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.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
204 2nd St NW · (507) 835-7064 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
223 State St N · (507) 835-1610 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Park
7th Ave NW · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
620 Elm Ave W · (507) 833-0017

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 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 2 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 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.

Overall rating4★
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 increased18.9%18.2%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.3%4.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.7%1.9%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.4%2.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms5.6%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 injury4.3%4.0%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened16.5%20.5%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication6.4%12.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.3%5.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control23.2%24.5%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table15.7%17.1%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication4.1%1.9%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine92.7%82.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.3%23.5%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit20.2%14.8%12.0%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.

53.6% 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.

53.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
46.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.19U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 46.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 26 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 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF53.6%CMS range 40.6–67.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.2%CMS range 5.7–14.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge46.1%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge30.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge38.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.7%CMS range 4.0–12.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.991.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.91
RN hours/ resident / day
0.35
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.06
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.32
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.63
RN hoursweekends
46.3%
Total nursing turnover
37.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 52 beds and averages 43.8 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.32 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.06 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.02 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.03 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-03-27)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2024-05-30)

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-03-27 · 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

    Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure frozen food items were stored in a manner to reduce the risk of cross contamination and potential foodborne illness in 1 of 1 walk-in freezers, failed to ensure food stored in the refrigerators and dry storage were labeled, dated and discarded properly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 48 residents, staff and visitors who received food from facility kitchen. Findings include: Freezer During the initial kitchen tour on 3/24/25 at 12:50 p.m., a walk-in commercial freezer had a cooling fan mounted to the top of the unit which had visible ice built up on numerous places along the unit. The ceiling of freezer had ice built up, thick in some areas and in frozen droplet forms in other areas, that went from the back wall of the freezer towards the front of the freezer cover two-thirds of the ceiling on the left side. The back wall of the freezer had ice build-up with the thickest of the ice towards the bottom with a mound of ice on the floor. [NAME] substance, approximately 5-inch…

    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 · Dcited before2025-03-27 · 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 ensure residents were comprehensively assessed for self-administration of medications for 1 of 1 resident (R35) reviewed for self-administration of medications. Findings include: R35's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R35 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s. R35's diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hypertension, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorder and arthritis. MDS indicated R35 required substantial/maximal assistance with personal hygiene. R3's physician orders included order for Ipratropium-Albuterol inhalation solution 0.5-2.5% (3) mg (milligram)/3 ml (milliliter) - inhale one vial orally three times a day related to respiratory syncytial virus as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere. During interview and observation on 3/24/25 at 1:56 p.m., R35 was sitting in a wheelchair in her room. Nebulizer mask 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-27 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide 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 record review the facility failed to provide assistance with facial hair removal for 1 of 1 resident (R35) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL')s . Findings include: R35's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R35 had intact cognition and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL)'s. R35's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, and arthritis. MDS indicated R35 required substantial/maximal assistance with personal hygiene. R35's care plan lacked evidence of resident's shaving preferences. During observation and interview on 3/24/25 at 1:46 p.m., R35 had white facial hair on chin approximately 1 inch long. R35 stated staff has assisted before and would like to be shaved. During observation on 3/25/25 at 10:47 a.m., R35 continued to have facial hair on chin. During observation on 3/26/25 at 7:12 a.m., R35 continued to have facial hair on chin. During observation on 3/27/25 at 9:22 a.m., R35 continued to have facial hair 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-27 · 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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to monitor orthostatic blood pressures for 3 of 3 residents (R7, R8, and R32) and failed to ensure residents were routinely assessed for side effects who received physician ordered antipsychotic medications for 1 of 5 residents (R8), reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R7 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s. R7's diagnoses included orthostatic hypotension, depression, bipolar disorder, secondary Parkinsonism, mild cognitive impairment of uncertain or unknown etiology, and insomnia. R7's physician orders included Aripiprazole (antipsychotic) 10 milligram (mg) by mouth in the morning for bipolar disorder and Olanzapine (antipsychotic) 5 mg by mouth at bedtime for bipolar disorder. R7's medical record lacked evidence orthostatic blood pressures had not been obtained three out of six months for R7…

    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
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-05-30 · 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, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure frozen food items were stored in a manner to reduce the risk of cross contamination and potential foodborne illness in 1 of 1 walk-in freezers using the main production kitchen. This had potential to affect all residents who could potentially consume the items. Findings include: On 5/28/24 at 9:57 a.m., an initial kitchen tour was completed. A single [NAME] walk-in commercial freezer was in use, opened and inspected. Inside, the unit had a cooling fan mounted to the top of the unit which had visible ice built up on numerous places along the unit. The ceiling of freezer had ice built up, thick in some areas and in frozen droplet forms in other areas, that went from the back wall of the freezer towards the front of the freezer cover two-thirds of the ceiling on the left side. The back wall of the freezer had ice build-up with the thickest of the ice towards the bottom. The floor of the freezer and the metallic shelving used also…

    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 · E2024-05-30 · tag F0811 — pattern
    Ensure that residents are assessed for appropriateness for a feeding assistant program, receive services as per their plan of care, and feeding assistants are trained and supervised.
    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 residents were assessed for appropriateness to be assisted by paid feeding assistants (PFA)'s at meals including residents with or without difficulty swallowing and/or with complicated feeding problems requiring a mechanically altered diet and/or special precautions for 6 of 6 residents (R4, R5, R6, R10, R16, and R30) reviewed. The facility also failed to ensure the PFA's were supervised at all times by a nurse while performing feeding assistance. Findings include: R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R4 had moderate cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and supervision or touching assistance for meals. R4's face sheet, printed 5/30/24, indicated R4 moved in on 1/12/10. Diagnoses included dementia with other behavioral disturbance, expressive language disorder, dsyarthria (speech disorder caused by weak muscles) following cerebral infarction…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-30 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — pattern
    Develop 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 recommended pneumococcal vaccinations, as outlined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), were offered and/or provided in a timely manner to reduce the risk of severe disease for 4 of 5 residents (R3, R2, R8, R24) reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: A CDC Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults feature, dated 3/2023, identified several tables with corresponding recommendations when to receive various versions (i.e., PPSV23, PCV13, PCV20) of the pneumococcal vaccine. The graph labeled, Adults [at or older than] [AGE] years old, outlined persons with a complete series of pneumococcal vaccination (i.e., PCV13 at any age, PPSV23 at or above [AGE] years old) should have shared clinical decision-making between the resident and healthcare provider to determine if PCV20 was appropriate. R3's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R3 had moderate cognitive impairment, and several medical conditions including heart…

    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 · D2024-05-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure dignified, personal space was maintained for 1 of 1 resident (R8) who had staff enter their room without knocking or waiting for a response. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a dignified, homelike dining experience was provided for 1 of 1 resident (R29) observed to wait for an extended period of time for their meal despite tablemate's being served. Findings include: ROOM KNOCK: R8's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/29/24, identified R8 had moderate cognitive impairment and it was very important for her to be able to use the phone in private. On 5/28/24 at 11:01 a.m., R8 was seated in her personal room with the doorway closed to the unit' hallway. R8 was being interviewed by the surveyor when suddenly, without any audible knock or verbal warning, the doorway from the hallway opened and nursing assistant (NA)-A poked their head inside. NA-A turned and looked at the surveyor before turning back to R8 and voicing aloud, I'm just checking on you. NA-A then turned to the surveyor…

    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 · D2024-05-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 comprehensive assess and, if needed, develop interventions to ensure an appropriate, proactive bowel management program was implemented to promote comfort for 1 of 1 resident (R31) reviewed who complained about constipation. Findings include: R31's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R31 had intact cognition and was continent of bowel. Further, the MDS outlined a question labeled, H0600, which asked if constipation was present. This was responded, No. R31's Retiring MHM (Monarch Healthcare Management) Admission/Initial Data Collection - V5, dated 4/5/24, identified R31 admitted to the care center from home and was on hospice care. The evaluation outlined R31 had not evident memory problem along with a section labeled, Current Bowel and Bladder Function, which asked four questions about continence. This identified R31 was occasionally incontinent of bowel, however, lacked any further questions or evidence to demonstrate R31's…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-06-07 · 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, interview and document review, the facility failed to mark/date opened containers of food stored in one kitchen refrigerators, a refrigerated sandwich prep table, and one freezer; and failed to ensure expired/damaged food were identified and removed. This had the potential to affect all 40 residents who were served food and beverages from the facility kitchen. Findings include: During interview and observation of kitchen on 6/6/23, at 11:50 a.m. with culinary director (CD)-D, observed food items in the refrigerated sandwich prep table, walk-in refrigerator, beverage service station refrigerator, and beverage service station freezer, that were not dated or marked and/or were expired/damaged. CD-D indicated all kitchen staff were responsible for checking food for opened dates and expiration dates, removing all expired/damaged foods when noted or per facility policy. CD-D indicated if any food or drink is not dated when opened, it should be removed immediately. CD-D indicated all left-over…

    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 · Dcited before2023-06-07 · 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 assess the resident and determine safety for self-administration of medications (SAM) for 1 of 1 resident (R14) who was observed to have medications at bedside. Findings include: R14's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, required one-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and indicated diagnoses including gastro-esophageal reflux disease (digestive disease), osteoarthritis, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and hypertension (high blood pressure). R14's care plan dated [DATE], indicated risk for discomfort and interventions included: monitor for verbal and nonverbal indicators of discomfort, provide non medicinal forms of pain relief such as positioning, rest, massage, encourage resident to verbalize discomfort, document on pain, keep medical doctor informed. During an observation and interview 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 · D2023-06-07 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 interview and document review the facility failed to complete a level II preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) for 2 of 2 residents (R3, R5), reviewed with new mental illness diagnoses. Findings include: R3's face sheet, printed on 6/6/23, indicated R3's original admission date was 5/10/19, diagnosis at time included anxiety disorder. Further review of the diagnosis listed on face sheet, indicated R3 was diagnosed with a mood disorder on 6/16/21 and psychosis (a mental disorder causing disconnection from reality), not due to a substance or known physiological condition, on 3/17/22. R3's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R3 had intact cognition and received antidepressant medication. R3's current physician orders, printed 6/6/23, included: monitoring for adverse side effects due to psychotropic medication use (medications altering mood/mental state), quetiapine fumarate (Seroquel, an antipsychotic (mood/mental state altering) medication); 125 mg twice daily…

    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
  • No harm found · C2025-03-27 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespread
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    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 Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee identify, investigate, analyze and respond to freezer maintenance (i.e., prevent ice buildup) by developing and implementing action plans for the process improvement identified to be a current concern with past identified non compliancy. This had potential to affect all 45 residents, staff and visitors who consumed food at the care center. Findings include: Facilities QAPI (Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement) Plan, identified the purpose of QA (Quality Assessment) would be to take a proactive approach to continually improve the way we provide care, with each employee to participate in the ongoing QAPI efforts. The facility QA plan outlined the facility would review data from areas defined by the facility as high risk or problem prone areas; and it outlined a process for how Performance Improvement Projects (PIP) would be completed. The QA team will determine what information is needed for the project and how to obtain it. A root cause…

    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.

    Administration 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 MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT — 45 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 4 of 52.2+1.8 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.1+1.9 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.7+0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.0≈ chain avg
The other 44 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
1 of 5Hillcrest Health Care, LLCMankato, MN 1 of 5Maplewood Rehabilitation CenterMaplewood, MN 1 of 5The Emeralds At Fairbault LLCFaribault, MN 1 of 5The Emeralds At Grand Rapids LLCGrand Rapids, MN 1 of 5The Emeralds At St Paul LLCSaint Paul, MN 1 of 5The Estates At Excelsior LLCExcelsior, MN 1 of 5The Estates At Lynnhurst LLCSaint Paul, MN 1 of 5The Villas At BrookviewGolden Valley, MN 1 of 5The Villas At New BrightonNew Brighton, MN 1 of 5The Villas At Osseo LLCOsseo, MN 1 of 5The Villas At RobbinsdaleRobbinsdale, MN 1 of 5The Villas At The CedarsSaint Louis Park, MN 1 of 5The Waterview Pines LLCVirginia, MN 1 of 5The Waterview Shores LLCTwo Harbors, MN 1 of 5The Waterview Woods LLCEveleth, MN 1 of 5Villas At Bryn Mawr LLCMinneapolis, MN 2 of 5Bayside Manor LLCGaylord, MN 2 of 5Oaklawn Health Care, LLCMankato, MN 2 of 5Parmly On The Lake LLCChisago City, MN 2 of 5The Estates At Chateau LLCMinneapolis, MN 2 of 5The Estates At Fridley LLCFridley, MN 2 of 5The Estates At Roseville LLCRoseville, MN 2 of 5The Estates At Rush City LLCRush City, MN 2 of 5The Estates At Twin Rivers LLCAnoka, MN 2 of 5The Gardens At Foley LLCFoley, MN 2 of 5The Gardens At Winsted LLCWinsted, MN 2 of 5The North Shore Estates LLCDuluth, MN 2 of 5The Villas At St Louis ParkSaint Louis Park, MN 2 of 5The Villas At St PaulSaint Paul, MN 2 of 5The Villas At The ParkSaint Louis Park, MN 3 of 5Bethany On The Lake LLCAlexandria, MN 3 of 5Laurels Peak Health Care, LLCMankato, MN 3 of 5Meeker Manor Rehablitation Center, LLCLitchfield, MN 3 of 5River Valley Health And Rehabilitation Center LLCRedwood Falls, MN 3 of 5The Estates At Bloomington LLCBloomington, MN 3 of 5The Estates At St Louis Park LLCSaint Louis Park, MN 3 of 5The Villas At RichfieldRichfield, MN 3 of 5The Villas At RosevilleRoseville, MN 4 of 5Mala Strana Health Care, LLCNew Prague, MN 4 of 5Sleepy Eye Rehabilitati CenterSleepy Eye, MN

Showing 40 of 44; lowest-rated first.

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
NIJ LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST14%since 07/15/2022
SPARTAN HEALTHCARE LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST32%since 07/15/2022
WBS HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST22%since 07/15/2022
YAZOMA HOLDINGS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST32%since 07/15/2022
HALPERT, MARCIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL32%since 07/01/2022
JAFFA, NOAMIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR14%since 07/01/2022
LEGUM, JOSHUAIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE32%since 07/01/2022
STERN, WILLIAMIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER22%since 07/01/2022

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 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.

$5.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+16.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$728K
Related-party expense16% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 39%Medicare 13%Other / private 49%

This home reported $728K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

$335per resident / day
operating cost
$10,175per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$401per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

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 245388. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-27, 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