Good Samaritan Society - Windom
705 Sixth Street, Windom, MN 56101 · Non profit - Corporation · 63 certified beds · (507) 831-1788 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $194,680 in federal fines (most recent 2026-01-27)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 2 to 1 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 | 28.8% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.6% | 4.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 1.9% | 0.9% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 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 | 4.5% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 30.6% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.0% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.1% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.1% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.0% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.4% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 7.6% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.4% | 82.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.8% | 23.5% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.7% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.14 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.25 | 1.90 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
39.0% 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 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 42.9% 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 21 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 0.04 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 39.0%CMS range 28.1–52.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.0%CMS range 6.9–15.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 42.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 23.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 38.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 3.9% | 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 | 3.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.2%CMS range 3.4–13.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.00 | 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 63 beds and averages 54.6 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 8 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 4.47 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.15 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.91 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.69 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
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.
35 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2026-01-27 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to identify, comprehensively assess, monitor, and develop interventions to prevent/mitigate the risk of pressure ulcer development and/or deterioration for 4 of 4 residents (R1, R2, R3, R5). The facility's failure resulted in Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) for R1 when the facility failed to prevent and manage impaired skin integrity that progressed to bone and soft tissue infections which required hospitalization for treatment and management.The IJ began on 12/31/25 after R1's existing buttock wound(s) were documented as black and blue tissue to the buttocks, with ongoing inconsistent identification of skin integrity and without completion of comprehensive wound assessments, physician notification, or implementation of effective treatment and pressure-relieving interventions to prevent further deterioration. The Administrator, director of nursing (DON), regional clinical services director, senior director, and clinical care lead registered nurse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2026-02-12 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
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 the infection preventionist provided the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) members with employee surveillance and illness data during monthly meetings. This had the potential to affect all 56 residents. TBReview of RN-A's employee file identified she had a hire date of 8/13/25. On 8/13/25, RN-A completed a baseline screening questionnaire and was given a first step TB skin test (TBT) which was negative for TB exposure. On 8/26/25, RN-A was given her second TST, On 8/29/25, the TST site on RN-A's arm was reviewed by the tester and determined positive as it showed induration (thickened, raised skin). Employee file note entitled Regarding [name] TB testing identified an un-named staff noted:RN-A's 1st TST was negative.Second TST was reviewed at 48 and showed redness and induration. Staff waited until the 72-hour (8/29/25) timeframe and re-evaluated. On 8/29/25, the redness was improved, however, the induration remained so the plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-02-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure there was appropriate surveillance and subsequent mitigation efforts and education identified for 1 of 1 staff (registered nurse (RN)-A) who was found to be positive for Tuberculosis (TB) during routine pre-employment testing. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure employees were cleared to return to work (RTW) after illness using professional standards and appropriately surveilled for illness, for 4 of 4 months (October 2025 through January 2026) reviewed. The facility also failed to ensure 3 of 3 whirlpool tubs were cleaned and disinfected according to manufacturer's guidelines and failed to ensure 1 of 1 nebulizer (inhaled medication) treatment devices were cleaned, rinsed, and left to air dry after each medication administration. These deficient practices had the potential to affect all 56 residents or other staff and visitors in the facility.Findings include: TBReview of RN-A's employee file identified she had a hire…
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 · E2026-02-12 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to provide the CMS-10055 Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF-ABN) to 3 of 3 (R13, R24, R40) sampled resident when they ended their Medicare Part A skilled services with days remaining.Findings include: R13's CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form identified R13's services ended on 9/16/25. There was a handwritten note dated 9/11/25 on the CMS-10123 form that the wife had been called and notified that the skilled services would end on 9/16/25. R13 was not provided with the CMS-10055 Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF-ABN) that identified the estimated cost of services if R13 would choose to continue with the skilled services on his own. R24's CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form identified R24's services ended on 8/22/25. There was a handwritten note dated 8/20/25 on the CMS-10123 form that the resident had been notified that the skilled services would end on 8/22/25. R24 was not provided with the CMS-10055 Skilled…
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 · E2026-02-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility staff failed to report allegations of potential abuse timely to the facility management for 3 of 3 residents (R7, R26, and R39) sampled. Findings include: Review of the 11/24/25 reports to the State Agency identified three individual reports were received identifying:R7 no longer wanted nursing assistant (NA)-C to assist because NA-C was too rough when providing cares, and disregarded R7's complaints of discomfort and pain.On 11/16/26, NA-C was rough during cares with R39, was unorganized, did not respond to call lights of certain residents, did not knock on resident doors before entering a resident's room, slammed doors and continued to assist residents who did not want NA-C's help.On 11/15/25, NA-C did not respect R26's privacy when providing cares and would leave her exposed during cares. R26's had requested to speak to the nurse twice, and NA-C just wanted R26 to tell her what she needed verses going to get the nurse for R26. R7's 12/19/25 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified she was admitted in October 2025,…
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 · E2026-02-12 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of potential abuse for 3 of 3 (R7, R26, R39) sample residents. Findings include: Review of the 11/24/25 reports to the State Agency identified three individual reports were received identifying:R7 no longer wanted nursing assistant (NA)-C to assist because NA-C was too rough when providing cares, and disregarded R7's complaints of discomfort and pain.On 11/16/26, NA-C was rough during cares with R39, was unorganized, did not respond to call lights of certain residents, did not knock on resident doors before entering a resident's room, slammed doors and continued to assist residents who did not want NA-C's help.On 11/15/25, NA-C did not respect R26's privacy when providing cares and would leave her exposed during cares. R26's had requested to speak to the nurse twice, and NA-C just wanted R26 to tell her what she needed verses going to get the nurse for R26. R7's 12/19/25 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified she was admitted in October 2025, her cognition was moderately…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 14 sampled resident (R26) code status was accurately reflected in all parts of the medical record. Findings include: R26's current face sheet identified she was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea (absence of breathing while asleep), asthma, chronic kidney disease, a history of multiple surgeries on her back and abdomen, diabetes, anxiety, history of shortness of breath, edema (swelling from fluid retention), arthritis in her bones, and a history scoliosis and other curvatures in her back. R26's quarterly, Minimum Data Set, accepted on [DATE], identified R26 had intact cognition and had no behaviors noted. R26 required the use of a wheelchair and required either extensive assistance or was dependent upon staff for most Activities of Daily Living such as toileting, dressing, and bathing. Observation on [DATE] at 6:22 p.m., of R26's electronic medical record identified on the main screen for R26'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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to identify target behaviors or symptoms for psychoactive medication for 3 of 5 (R3, R7, R26) sampled residents for monitoring. Findings include: R26's accepted 12/27/25, quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R26's cognition was intact. She required staff assistance with care. R26 took an antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications. R26 had diagnoses of anxiety and depression. R26's care plan identified she was on medication with FDA boxed warning or warnings of adverse consequences related to major depressive disorder and anxiety. The facility would consult with the pharmacy and health care provider to consider dosage reduction when clinically appropriate. R26 had a depression diagnosis, and the facility would attempt non-pharmacological interventions. R26 enjoyed playing games on her ipad, she enjoyed visits from the companion dogs. R26 used psychopharmacological medications (Seroquel an anti-psychotic medication, duloxetine an anti-depressant medication, and buspirone an anti-anxiety…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 notify the ombudsman of a discharge for 2 of 2 (R6, R61) sampled residents.Findings include: R61's 12/19/25, accepted discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) identified an unplanned discharge return not anticipated. R61 had discharged on 12/15/25 and returned home. R61's 12/15/25, progress note identified that R61 had discharged home with family against medical advice. Interview on 2/12/26 at 3:00 p.m., with social service designee (SSD) identified that she had just clarified discharge reporting with the ombudsman on 2/11/26, as she was unsure of the process. She reported that the licensed social worker (LSW) had not reported R61's or R6's unplanned discharge from the facility to the ombudsman. She further identified she had not reported the discharges to the ombudsman either. She identified that neither she nor the LSW were aware of reporting all discharges including an unplanned discharge or discharge against medical advice. R6's 11/21/25, discharge…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to complete and submitted a timely quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 1 (R56) resident reviewed.Findings include: R56's 2/12/26, printed admission Record identified that R56 had been admitted to the facility at the end of September 2025. R56's MDS section in Point Click Care (PCC), the facilities electronic medical record identified that R56's last MDS was completed with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/26/25 as an MDS admission/5-day assessment. There had been no other MDS's initiated or started under the MDS section of the facilities PCC electronic medical record. Interview on 2/12/26 at 9:07 a.m., with registered nurse (RN)-B identified that she was responsible for completing and submitting the MDS assessments. She revealed that PCC did not automatically calculate R56's MDS schedule and she had missed completing a quarterly assessment for R56. She confirmed that the quarterly MDS should have been completed in December of 2025. Interview on 2/12/26 at 3:21 p.m., with the senior clinical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PAS) level I was completed accurately for 1 of 1 resident (R3) reviewed for PASARR. Findings include: R3's 1/2/25, comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified he was admitted to the facility in December of 2024, his cognition was moderately impaired, and he had diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). R3's diagnosis report identified he had a diagnosis of PTSD, insomnia due to other mental illness condition, anxiety disorder, and mood disorder due to known physiological condition with depressive features upon admission. R3's 12/18/24, initial pre-admission screen (PAS) completed by the facility and submitted to Senior LinkAge indicated that R3 had no major mental health disorders diagnosable as listed in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). R3 did not meet the criteria for mental illness (MI) however, final determination would be made by Senior LinkAge Line. Interview on 2/11/26 at 8:41…
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.
Show the remaining 24 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to have an integrated care plan to coordinate and delineate what services hospice was to provide and what services the facility was to provide, to ensure oversight and services would be provided for 1 of 1 sampled resident (R5) reviewed for hospice care.Findings include: R5's 2/6/26, quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) identified R5 had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff to assist with his cares. R5 had a condition or chronic disease that may result in life expectancy of less than 6 months and was currently receiving hospice services. R5's hospice care plan identified the hospice NA would perform or assist with duties as directed. The hospice aid would apply lotion, assist with incontinent cares, dressing, and shampoo and haircare. The hospice aid would clean and tidy R5's room and report to the registered nurse with any questions or concerns. The hospice staff would effectively collaborate with facility/agency staff or providers. The collaboration with the facility staff would include discussion of 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 · D2026-02-12 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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 1 of 1 resident (R1) who had impaired hearing was provided hearing aids daily. Findings include: R1's 10/29/25 comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified hearing and cognition are moderately impaired. R1's current, undated care plan identified he has impaired thought process and decision making related to the aging process and he would be able to communicate basic needs on a daily basis. R1 would need assistance with all decision making and staff were to ask him yes or no questions in order to determine his needs. R1 had a communication problem related to his hearing deficit. Staff were to ensure and document hearing aids are both in place during the day and removed at bedtime. R1's care plan did not identify a behavior of refusing hearing aids nor did it identify what staff should do if R1 refused his hearing aids. R1's December 2025 through February 2026, Treatment Administration Record (TAR) identified an order for staff to insert hearing aids at 7:00 a.m., daily and remove them 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 · D2026-02-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to have signage posted outside the door for 1 of 1 medication room (South) identifying oxygen canisters were stored within. Findings include: Observation on 2/10/26 at 4:32 p.m., of the South medication room with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A identified a cupboard to the far right of the door, with a pullout drawer containing 3 canisters of oxygen (O2). The canisters were held in place in individual holders inside the cabinet. Upon inspection, the outside of the medication room did not have signage posted notifying staff oxygen was being stored in the medication room. LPN-A normally did not work on that wing and was unaware of the oxygen being stored there. Interview on 2/10/26 at 5:44 p.m., with the director of nursing identified she agreed when O2 was stored in a room, signage should be placed on the outside of the room, identifying O2 was being stored within. Review of the 7/30/25, Oxygen Administration, Safety, Mask Types policy identified its purpose was to store O2 in a safe manner. All appropriate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure controlled narcotic medication awaiting destruction were easily reconciled in 1 of 3 med rooms (South) to prevent potential diversion.Findings include: Observation and interview with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A in the South medication room identified a locked cupboard that contained medication awaiting destruction. Of those medications, the following controlled/narcotic blister-pack medication had been discontinued, but were not noted on any list to verify the medications were tracked and secured from potential diversion:R26 had 4 tablets of tramadol (pain), each 50 milligram (mg) awaiting destruction. R17 had 12 tablets of tramadol, each 50 mg dose awaiting destruction.R24 had 5 tablets of lorazepam (anti-anxiety), each 0.5 mg awaiting destruction.R7 had 1 tablet of preglabin (anti-convulsant) at 150 mg.R17 had 30 tablets of lorazepam, each 0.5 mg awaiting destruction.R2 had 9 tablets of Xanax (anti-anxiety), 0.5 mg each and another blister pack of Xanax 0.5 mg with 10 tablets remaining…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 pharmacist consultant recommendations were acted upon for 1 of 5 sampled resident (R26).Findings include: R26's accepted 12/27/25, quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R26's cognition was intact. She required moderate to total assistance from staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL'S). R26 took an antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications. R26's current undated, care plan identified she was on medication with warnings of adverse consequences related to major depressive disorder and anxiety. R26 used psychopharmacological medications Seroquel (an anti-psychotic), duloxetine (an anti-depressant), buspirone (an anti-anxiety) related to anxiety and depression. R26's 2/10/26, printed Order Summary Report identified that R26 took quetiapine fumarate (Seroquel) an antipsychotic medication daily. R26's 1/28/26, pharmacist recommendation identified for nursing to complete an abnormal involuntary movement scale (AIMS) assessment. The AIMS assessment was a tool to detect and monitor 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 · D2026-02-12 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the overall medication error rate was below 5% for 2 of 25 observations resulting in an 8% medication error rate.Findings include: Observation on 2/10/26 at 11:54 p.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-B identified she went to administer 1 tablet of Baclofen (muscle relaxant) 10 milligrams (mg) and 1 tablet of spironolactone (diuretic) 25 mg, inside of a medication cup to R47 who was reported to be in her room. LPN-B knocked on R47's room door. R47 was not inside her room, so LPN-B left the medication cup containing the medications on R47's dresser drawer just inside her room and shut the door. LPN-B stated R47 was able to self-administer her medications, so she would leave them there for her to take them later. LPN-B then returned to the medication cart and finished the medication pass identifying and marked the medication had been administered in the electronic medical record (PCC). Interview on 2/10/26 at 5:44 p.m. with the director of nursing identified staff were not to leave medications…
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 · E2026-01-27 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to update the care plan for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include:R1's face sheet dated 1/20/26, identified R1 admitted with diagnoses of paraplegia (paralysis of legs and lower body), pressure ulcer of right heel (diagnosis added 8/11/25), type 2 diabetes, and obesity. On 1/13/26, diagnoses of pressure ulcer of other site, pressure ulcer of unspecified, pressure ulcer of left buttock were included.R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had no cognitive impairments, no rejection of care, had an indwelling catheter and ostomy, had impairment on both sides of lower extremities, dependent for lower body care, maximum assistance to roll left and right, and dependent to transfer from surfaces. R1 was at risk of developing pressure ulcers/injuries but did not have any pressure ulcers and no open lesions. Treatments included pressure-reducing devices for chair and bed. R1 was not on a turning and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-27 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide dignity 2 of 3 residents (R5, R6) who were reviewed for dignity. Findings include:R5's face sheet dated 1/20/26, identified diagnoses of Alzheimer's, and dementia.R5's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified R5 had moderate cognitive impairment, no behaviors, used a walker and wheelchair; needed moderate assistance with dressing upper and lower body, independent to roll side to side, touching assistance to transfer locations.R5's care plan dated 10/27/25, identified self-care deficits. Interventions included R5 could not walk, used mechanical lift for transfers, and required 1-2 staff to assist with toileting needs.R5's progress note dated 1/2/26, identified hospice nurse visited and placed a urinary catheter.During an observation and interview on 1/20/26 at 8:23 a.m., R5 was in his recliner chair. R5's urinary catheter collection bag was hanging on a garbage can next to recliner without a dignity cover. Registered nurse (RN)-A was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify the physician and resident representative regarding changes to skin integrity and treatment orders for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for change in condition. Findings include:R1's face sheet dated 1/20/26, identified R1 admitted with diagnoses of paraplegia (paralysis of legs and lower body).R1's care plan dated 11/20/25, identified R1 had shearing on his left and right buttock and is at risk for skin breakdown and shearing related to immobilization/chairbound/bedbound and used the total lift sling evidenced by open shearing areas on both left and right buttock. Interventions included to keep skin clean and dry. Use skin barrier cream to buttocks daily and protect these areas with a dressing when open and draining. High risk for skin injury-use caution during transfers when using the sling being cautious to not quickly and forcefully place the sling under R1. Monitor for signs of shearing. Report abnormalities, failure to heal, signs and symptoms of infection, maceration, etc. to health care provider.R1's faxed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-27 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
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 record review the facility failed to assist 1 of 3 residents (R1) who requested to be seen by the dentist. Findings include:R1's face sheet dated 1/20/26, identified diagnoses of paraplegia (paralysis of legs and lower body), type 2 diabetes,R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had no cognitive impairments, no rejection of care, and no obvious or likely cavities or broken natural teeth.R1's Nursing Admit/Re-admit Data collection dated 8/11/25, identified R1 had no dentures or bridges, no natural teeth or tooth fragments, obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth. Additional comments identified R1 would like to pursue some dental care.During an interview on 1/23/26 at 2:41 p.m., R1 stated no one at the facility ever worked with him to make a dental appointment. R1 stated he had told clinical care leader registered nurse (CCLRN)-B at some point.During an interview on 1/20/26 at 11:52 a.m., CCLRN-B stated she had completed R1's Nursing Admit/Re-admit Data.…
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 before2026-01-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow infection control practices for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R5) reviewed for infection control. Findings include:R1's face sheet dated 1/20/26, identified R1 admitted with diagnoses of paraplegia (paralysis of legs and lower body), pressure ulcer of right heel (diagnosis added 8/11/25), type 2 diabetes, and obesity. On 1/13/26, diagnoses of pressure ulcer of other site, pressure ulcer of unspecified, pressure ulcer of left buttock were included.R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 had no cognitive impairments, no rejection of care, had an indwelling catheter and ostomy, had impairment on both sides of lower extremities, dependent for lower body care, maximum assistance to roll left and right, and dependent to transfer from surfaces. R1 was at risk of developing pressure ulcers/injuries but did not have any pressure ulcers and no open lesions. Treatments included pressure-reducing devices for chair and bed. R1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-12-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to maintain a system to analyze monthly surveillance data for trends and patterns to reduce the spread of illness, infections, control transmission of infections and communicable diseases present in the facility. This had the potential to affect all 53 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: Document titled Monthly Infection Summary August 2024, September 2024, November 2024, indicated resident name, start date, date symptoms resolved, type of infection, status, antimicrobial, infection source and surveillance of criteria met. No mapping or trending of the data was provided. On 12/11/24 at 10:32 a.m., during an interview registered nurse (RN)-B stated she was the infection nurse at the facility. RN-B stated she was responsible for overseeing the facility's infection control program and maintaining the facility's infection control surveillance log. RN-B stated the infections were tracked and documented on the computer tracking form, but no ongoing formal surveillance, monitoring of trends and/or…
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 before2024-12-11 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided care in a dignified and respectful manner for 1 of 3 residents (R13) who were observed during care interactions. Findings include: R13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R13 had moderately impaired cognition, had no rejection of care, was frequently incontinent of bladder, always continent of bowel, had a bowel toileting program, and was dependent for toilet transfers and toileting hygiene. R13's care plan dated 11/14/24, indicated a history of bowel incontinence related to loss of sensation, impaired mobility, needing staff assistance with transfers with a goal of 20 or less incontinent episodes of bowel movements through the next review date, constipation related to decreased mobility, frequent bladder incontinence related to stroke side effects with a goal of being continent of bladder during waking hours through the review date. R13's care plan further indicated a…
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 before2024-12-11 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 provide services to restore, maintain and prevent loss of range of motion (ROM) for 1 of 1 resident (R10) reviewed for limited ROM. Findings include: R10's facesheet printed 12/11/24, identified diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements), dementia, polyneuropathy (nerves that affects the skin, muscles and organs are damaged and can't sent signals back to the brain) and peripheral vascular disease (veins/arteries in the arms, hands, legs and feet have restricted blood flow). R10's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R10 had severely impaired cognition, limited range of motion of both upper and lower extremities on both right and left sides, dependent on staff for eating, and all activities of daily living. R10's care plan dated 6/2/24, indicated R10 had a need for a functional maintenance program due to limited mobility in left fingers/palm. Goal…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-11 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 follow standards of care and practice for use of an indwelling catheter for 1 of 1 resident (R15) who used an indwelling catheter. Findings include: R15's facesheet, printed 12/11/24, included diagnoses of ulcerative proctitis (inflammatory bowel disease affecting only the rectum), insomnia, and hypothyroidism. There was no medical diagnosis indicating indication or rationale for Foley catheter. R15's quarterly Minimums Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], included moderately impaired cognition, requires partial to moderate assistance for toilet transfer, is continent of bowel and has an indwelling catheter. R15 does not have post void (urination) residuals greater than 250 cc. R15's Catheter Data Collection dated 11/15/24, indicated continued use of indwelling catheter. Reason for catheter was overactive bladder. Indications for use of catheter was checked as other with specify other left blank. R15's plan of care dated 8/27/24,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-11-02 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
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 that in the absence of a full-time registered dietician (RD), the supervisor of nutrition and food services (SNFS) was certified to oversee nutrition and food services. This had potential to affect all 56 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: During an interview on 10/30/23 at 12:58 p.m., SNFS-H stated she had not been certified in any capacity for the role of supervisor of nutrition and food services. SNFS-H had been the supervisor for four and a half years; had started a certified dietary manager (CDM) course through a college in 2020 but had not finished. During a telephone interview on 11/1/23 at 9:06 a.m., registered dietitian (RD)-G stated she had been part-time, and was at the facility once or twice a month. RD-G stated she was aware SNFS-H had not been certified for her role as supervisor of nutrition and food services, and aware she had started the CDM course but had not finished. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 10:50 a.m., the administrator stated she was aware SNFS-H had not been…
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 · F2023-11-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed appropriate infection control practices while handling cups and silverware during food service. In addition, the facility failed to ensure pans in the kitchen were completely dry before storing to prevent bacterial growth. Further, the facility failed to ensure hairnets were accessible to staff upon entrance to the kitchen. This had potential to affect all 56 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 10/30/23 at 6:03 p.m., in the North dining room, observed nursing assistant (NA)-J handle two plastic cups and a plastic coffee cup by the rim with bare hands while filling them and setting them on a table. NA-J was informed of observations and admitted she should not have done that as it could spread germs. NA-J stated she had training on proper handling of cups and should have held the cup from the side. During an observation and interview on 10/31/23 at 12:06 p.m., in the Center dining area, observed (NA)-K hold two empty cups by 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 · Fcited before2023-11-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed when staff were observed going room to room delivering clean laundry. In addition, the facility failed to monitor risk factor testing associated with the facility water management program to prevent waterborne pathogens including Legionella (bacteria that can cause lung infection). This had potential to affect all 56 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Review of the facilities Water Plan dated 4/9/19, did not include a diagram of water input, storage and distribution throughout the facility. The facilities monitoring and verification plan dated 4/9/2019, for minimum requirements for building water systems included 1. Cold water services: To be sampled at the source of nearest outlet. Primary limit was listed as < 77 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Monitoring for cold water systems include water temperature weekly and chlorine residual monthly from nearest outlet, 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 · D2023-11-02 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow 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 1 of 1 resident (R31) who was observed to have medications in her room, had been appropriately assessed and deemed safe to self-administer medications. Findings include: R31's facesheet printed on 11/2/23, included diagnoses of restless legs, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux (when stomach acid irritates food pipe lining). R31's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R31 had moderately impaired cognition, had adequate vision and hearing, clear speech, was understood and could understand. R31 could transfer and walk in her room with limited assistance of one staff. R31's physician orders included: ---9/25/23: Tums Tablet Chewable 500 MG (milligram) (Calcium Carbonate Antacid), give one tablet by mouth as needed; may take up to four times a day. ---9/27/23: Trolamine Salicylate External Cream 10 % (Trolamine Salicylate) - also known as Aspercreme. Apply to painful area feet/ legs topically as…
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 · D2023-11-02 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded for antipsychotic medications for 1 of 1 resident (R18) and for fall resulting in major injury for 1 of 1 resident (R2) reviewed for falls. Findings include: R2's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], completed by registered nurse (RN)-D, indicated R2 had moderately impaired cognition required two-person physical assist for bed mobility, transfer, toilet use, personal hygiene and dressing. Further, the MDS indicated R2 has had no falls since admission or prior assessment and no fall any time in the last month prior to admission. R2's medical record review included a nursing progress note by RN-F dated 9/8/23 at 8:50 p.m., resident was yelling out and staff found R2 lying on right side in front of dresser by bathroom door in room. Right leg was rotated inward and R2 was sent to the emergency department for evaluation. R2's medical record review included a nursing progress note by RN-E…
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 · D2023-11-02 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for 1 of 1 resident (R21) who was dependent upon staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). Findings include: R21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R21 had moderately impaired cognition, no rejection of care, required two person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, utilized a wheelchair, always incontinent of bladder, frequently incontinent of bowel, diagnoses included cerebrovascular accident (stroke), and depression. R21's care plan printed 10/31/23, indicated R21 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) lt (left) hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), weakness secondary to CVA E/B (evidenced by) inability to independently dress, groom, toilet, bathe self, unable to transfer independently and interventions included toileting schedule: assist with toileting on bed pan upon…
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 before2023-11-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for compression socks for 1 of 1 resident (R35) reviewed for edema, failed to monitor, treat skin lesions for 2 of 2 residents (R35 and R55) reviewed for non-pressure related skin condition, and failed to monitor the frequency of resident bowel movements and provide intervention for 2 of 2 residents (R36 and R49) reviewed for constipation. Findings include: Skin R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis of myocardial infarction (heart muscle damage cause by blocked arteries), peripheral vascular disease (abnormal narrowing of arteries other than those that supply the heart or brain), acute kidney failure, high blood pressure and respiratory failure. R55's 5 day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R55 had moderate cognitive impairment, uses a walker for mobility and requires partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility, and substantial to maximum assistance with toileting and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-02 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 range of motion program for upper and lower extremities was implemented for 1 of 2 residents (R47) reviewed who had limited range of motion. Findings include: R47's face sheet printed 11/2/23, identified diagnoses of intracranial injury (head injury causing damage to the brain with long term complications), and autonomic dysreflexia (syndrome with sudden onset of excessively high blood pressure common in people with spinal cord injuries above the thoracic nerves of the spine). R47's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R47 was unable to speak, had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and was totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADL's). Range of motion on upper and lower extremities was not assessed. Diagnosis included traumatic brain dysfunction. R47's care plan, dated 7/5/23, identified a need for functional maintenance intervention related 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 · D2023-11-02 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
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 thoroughly explain an arbitration agreement for complete understanding of the agreement upon admission, for 2 of 3 residents (R55 and R111) reviewed for binding arbitration. Finding include: R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the face sheet (located in the medical record) identified R55 as being his own power of attorney. Review of the admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R55 had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 9 meaning moderate impairment of cognition. Review of a admission agreement for R55 Resolution of Legal Disputes/Arbitration Agreement dated 10/3/23, indicated Yes I do wish to arbitrate and I received a copy of this Resolution of Legal Disputes signed by R55. During interview on 11/2/23 at 10:57 a.m., R55 indicated he doesn't remember signing this agreement. Family member (FM)-A was present and indicated she did not understand they were giving up their right to litigation. FM-A…
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
$194,680 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $194,680 — penalty dated 2026-01-27
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-02-26 for 20 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY — 92 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 | 1 of 5 | 3.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
The other 91 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 91; 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SANFORD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2019 |
| THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2019 |
| BROWN, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| DYKHOUSE, DANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| ENGBRECHT, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GASSEN, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GULSVIG, NEIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| HERSETH SANDLIN, STEPHANIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| LUNDEEN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| MCCAUSLAND, MAUREEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MOLBERT, LAURIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| NORTH, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| SCHIEFFER, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SHULKIN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| TEIKEN, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| WENZEL, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FLUIT, JOEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/06/2026 |
| MIDDLETON, AIMEE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/27/2022 |
| OLSON, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2024 |
| SCHEMA, NATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| DYNES, RODNEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/20/2023 |
| MORRISON, TONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| SANDGREN, DEEANDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/16/2023 |
| WEPPLO, NANCY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/06/2018 |
| DTN STAFFING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2024 |
| FOCUSONE SOLUTIONS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/04/2024 |
| GRAPE TREE MEDICAL STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/13/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 57 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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 $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% 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 2024. 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, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Minnesota Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 245558. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-12, 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.