Folkestone
100 Promenade Avenue, Wayzata, MN 55391 · Non profit - Corporation · 30 certified beds · (952) 249-2400 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 23.0% | 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 | 3.6% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.5% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 4.1% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.4% | 4.0% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 33.1% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.5% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.9% | 96.1% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.9% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.9% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.5% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 10.7% | 23.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 0.0% | 14.8% | 12.0% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.84 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.72 | 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.
50.0% 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 45 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 1.11 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 50.0%CMS range 37.5–61.5 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 6.8–14.5 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 90.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.8% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.74 | 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 30 beds and averages 27.5 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.20 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.22 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 4.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.83 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.31 to 0.95 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-20 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure confidential information was not readily available for all residents, staff, and visitors to view for 3 of 3 residents (R3, R16, and R21) who's confidential information was observed to be visible on the open computer screen in the hallway.Findings include:During a medication pass observation on 11/17/25 at 6:33 p.m., trained medical assistant (TMA)-A prepared R16's prescribed medication for administration. TMA-A locked the Salon medication cart, went to R16's room, closed the door, and gave R16 the prescribed medication. The computer screen on the Salon medication cart was left open to R16's confidential information. TMA-A went back to the Salon medication cart and charted the medication was given.During a medication pass observation on 11/17/25 at 6:38 p.m., TMA-A prepared R3's prescribed medication for administration. TMA-A locked the Salon medication cart, went to R3's room, closed the door, and gave R3 the prescribed medications. The computer screen on the Salon medication cart was left open to…
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 · D2025-11-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure a medication was secured in a resident accessible areas. This had the potential to affect all residents who received medications from the Salon medication cart.Findings include:During an observation on 11/17/25 at 6:33 p.m., trained medical assistant (TMA)-A prepared medication for administration to R16. TMA-A locked the Salon medication cart and left a bottle of acetaminophen 500 milligram (mg) tablets about half full sitting on top of the Salon medication cart in the hallway. TMA-A went into R16's room, closed the door, and gave R16 the prescribed medication.During an observation on 11/17/25 at 6:38 p.m., TMA-A prepared medication for administration to R3. TMA-A locked the Salon medication cart and left a bottle of acetaminophen 500 mg tablets about half full sitting on top of the Salon medication cart in the hallway. TMA-A went into R3's room, closed the door, and gave R3 the prescribed medication.During an interview on 11/17/25 at 6:43 p.m., TMA-A indicated she had left the bottle of acetaminophen…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-10-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food items were properly stored, labeled, and dated, and kitchen fans were kept in clean condition. Also, the facility failed to ensure that staff with facial hair wore beard nets while in the kitchen and plating food. This had the potential to affect all 29 residents , staff, and visitors who consumed food from the main and/or fourth floor kitchen. Findings include: During the initial kitchen tour with executive chef (EC) on 10/14/24 at 12:53 p.m., the walk-in refrigerator on the main kitchen was reviewed. EC stated an unopened cooked corned beef package came from the freezer Friday and was for sandwiches and added date to the package. Unopened packaged ground beef was in a cardboard box with the date 9/30/24 typed on its packaging and/or delivery sticker, and EC marked the box for next use. Other unopened packages of ground beef were thawing next to the box and not in drip-proof container. EC stated the packages of ground beef…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-17 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 medications were administered in accordance with physician orders and manufacturer guidelines for 3 of 9 residents (R4, R17, and R15) observed to receive medication. A total of four (4) errors out of 29 opportunities were identified which resulted in a medication error rate of 13.79%. Findings include: R4: R4's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R4 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (a heart condition which causes an irregular, often rapid, heartbeat), heart failure (heart muscle does not pump blood as well as it should), and hypertension (high blood pressure), kidney failure (loss of kidney function which normally removes waste and excess fluid from blood), and diabetes mellitus [condition which affects how the body uses blood sugar (glucose)]. R4's Order Review Report signed 9/26/24, identified R4 required polyethylene glycol 3350 oral packet 8.6 gram by mouth in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-17 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to accurately transcribe a medication order, and failed to check the medication administration record (MAR) against the medication label and clarify administration instructions prior to giving medication for 1 of 1 resident (R4) who received an anticoagulant (also known as blood thinners; medication used to prevent or reduce blood clots) during medication administration observation. Findings include: R4's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R4 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (a heart condition which causes an irregular, often rapid, heartbeat), heart failure (heart muscle does not pump blood as well as it should), hypertension (high blood pressure), kidney failure (loss of kidney function which normally removes waste and excess fluid from blood), and diabetes mellitus [condition which affects how the body uses blood sugar (glucose)]. R4's undated care plan, identified R4 was at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-07 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based in interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a care conference was conducted and residents and their representatives were involved in the revision of the plan of care for 1 of 1 residents (R4) reviewed for participation in care. Findings include: R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R4 was severely cognitively impaired, and required extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. R4's care plan was last reviewed on 10/3/23. R4's Profile printed 12/5/23, identified R4's daughter as responsible party. R4's Medical Diagnosis list dated 12/5/23, included dementia and anxiety. R4's Care Conference Summary dated 7/7/23, identified R4, R4's spouse, and R4's daughter as attendees. R4's progress note dated 10/2/23, indicated RSD (resident services director) called to schedule care conference multiple times and daughter has no returned call. Will continue to try. R4's medical record lacked evidence of a quarterly care conference after 7/7/23.…
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 before2023-12-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to accurately transcribe a medication order, and failed to check the medication administration record (MAR) against the medication label prior to giving medication to ensure staff dispensed the correct medication for 1 of 4 residents (R1) observed during medication administration. Findings include: R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], included R1 was severely cognitively impaired, and had diagnoses of high blood pressure, kidney failure, and lung disease. R1's care plan dated 9/13/23, included R1 had an alteration in cardiovascular status related to high blood pressure and heart conditions and instructed staff to give medications as ordered. R1's order report dated 12/6/23, included: -Metoprolol Succinate ER Oral Tablet Extended Release 24 Hour, 25 milligrams (mg), give 1.5 tablets (37.5 mg) in the morning for high blood pressure starting 3/4/23 and discontinued 10/10/23. (An extended-release tablet which can be taken once per…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-07 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 residents (R11, R77, R19) were offered or received the pneumococcal vaccine in accordance with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations. Findings include: R11's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R11 had severe cognitive impairments and diagnoses of femur fracture and Alzheimer's disease. Furthermore, R11's MDS indicated R11 was not up to date on the pneumococcal immunization. R11's Minnesota Immunization Information Connect (MIIC) dated 6/21/23, indicated R11 had not received any pneumococcal vaccine. R11's pneumococcal vaccination consent form dated 6/22/23, indicated R11's family consented for R11 to receive a pneumococcal vaccination. Review of the current CDC recommendations 03/15/23, revealed the CDC identified individuals who have not previously received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PVC) should receive the receive the PVC 15 or PVC 20. R11's electronic medical record lacked evidence…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2024-10-17 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 required nurse staff data was posted daily before each shift, including over the weekend, and the accuracy of the posted nurse staffing information. This had potential to affect all 29 residents residing in the facility and/or visitors who may wish to view the information. Findings include: On 10/14/24 at 2:23 p.m., the PHS-Daily Hours Posted was in a holder on the wall near the nursing station and administrators' office. The posting was dated 10/11/24. The clinical administrator (director of nursing; DON) confirmed the posting was for 10/11/24 and stated they sometimes pulled the weekend information and reviewed before placing the posting back in holder. The facility staff posting dated 9/16/24, indicated the evening shift had no licensed staff and four non licensed staff. The daily roster dated 9/16/24, indicated the evening shift had one licensed practical nurse (LPN) from C.S. (central staffing) and five non licensed staff. The facility staff posting dated 9/24/24, indicated the evening shift had…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES — 21 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.9 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
The other 20 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AND SERVICES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/03/2012 |
| PRESBYTERIAN HOMES HOUSING AND ASSISTED LIVING, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/03/2012 |
| COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2025 |
| FLETCHER, JONATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2005 |
| PEDERSON, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| PETERSON, HEIDI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| MEYER, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/11/2011 |
| PHS MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2012 |
| BREHMER, JACOB | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2023 |
| MIELKE, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MN
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Minnesota Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 245621. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-20, 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.