St Francis Home

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

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.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

55.3% 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 81 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 58.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 50 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 26% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 79.5 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.22 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.71 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.55 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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

Inspection trend

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

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

26 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 16 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2026-04-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a safe and sanitary manner. This practice had the potential to affect 74 of 74 residents residing in the facility. The facility did not ensure time/temperature control foods were labeled appropriately with open and/or use-by dates. Findings include: On 3/30/26 at 9:22 AM, Food and Nutrition Services Director (FNSD)-C indicated the facility follows the Wisconsin Food Code as their standard of practice. The 2022 Wisconsin Food Code documents at 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking: (A) Except when packaging food using a reduced oxygen packaging method as specified under S 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E), (F), and (H) of this section, refrigerated, ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-04-01 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — pattern
  Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure their abuse policy was implemented for 2 of 8 employees reviewed for employee reference checks. This practice had the potential to affect more than 4 of the 74 residents residing in the facility.The facility did not complete reference checks for Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-F and CNA-G.Findings include:The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, revised 2025, indicates: .I. Screening: A. Potential employees will be screened for a history of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property. 1. Background, reference, and credentials checks shall be conducted on potential employees, contracted temporary staff, students affiliated with academic institutions, volunteers, and consultants. Background checks, including re-checks, will be completed consistent with applicable state laws and regulation. Responsibility for performance of compliance checks on contracted temporary staff will be established via contractual agreement. 2. Screenings may be conducted by the facility itself, 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-01 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the necessary care and services to monitor weight gain was provided 1 resident (R) (R5) of 2 sampled residents.R5's weight was not monitored as ordered. In addition, R5's physician was not notified as ordered when R5 gained 3 pounds or more in one day.Findings include:The facility's Weight Monitoring policy, revised 2025, indicates: .Weight can be a useful indicator of nutritional status. Significant unintended changes in weight (loss or gain).may indicate a nutritional problem.A weight monitoring schedule will be developed upon admission for all residents.If clinically indicated, monitor weight daily .The physician should be informed of a significant change in weight.Observations pertinent to the resident's weight status should be recorded in the medical record as appropriate.The facility's undated Assisted Nutrition and Hydration policy indicates: .Recognize, evaluate, and address the needs of.the resident at risk or already experiencing…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-04-01 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
  Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
  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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure fistula monitoring and pre-treatment dialysis forms were completed for 1 resident (R) (R5) of 1 sampled resident.R5's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) indicated R5's fistula wasn't consistently monitored. In addition, R5's pre-treatment dialysis forms were not consistently completed.Findings include:The facility's Dialysis policy, revised 2025, indicates: This facility will provide the necessary care and treatment, consistent with professional standards of practice, physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan.to meet the special medical needs of the resident receiving hemodialysis .The facility will assure each resident receives care and services for the provision of hemodialysis consistent with professional standards of practice. This will include the ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and monitoring for complications before.dialysis treatments.ongoing assessment and oversight of the resident before,…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the transmission of communicable disease and infection for 3 residents (R) (R1, R6, and R39) of 3 sampled residents. R1 was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for an indwelling catheter and wounds. During care observations and medication administration, staff did not adhere to EBP. R6 was on EBP for an indwelling catheter. During care and therapy observations, staff did not adhere to EBP. R39 had an order for EBP due to an indwelling catheter; however, there was not an EBP sign outside R39's room. During a care observation, staff did not adhere to EBP. In addition, R39's care plan did not indicate R39 was on EBP. Findings include: The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy, dated January 2025, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for the prevention of transmission of…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not report an allegation of misappropriation of contingency medication to the State Agency (SA). This had the potential to affect residents in the facility who may have needed contingency medications that were potentially diverted. On 1/11/25, the facility discovered missing doses of narcotic medication which raised the concern of potential drug diversion. The facility did not report the allegation of misappropriation to the SA. Findings include: The facility's Reporting Suspected Crimes Under the Federal Elder Justice Act, dated May 2020, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to a comply with the Elder Justice Act about reporting a reasonable suspicion of a crime under Section 1150B of the Social Security Act, as established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act .Facilities are not required to report to either the State Survey Agency or local law enforcement under this act; only individuals are required to report. However, facilities may be required to report certain incidents under other federal,…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-12-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the transmission of communicable disease and infection for 8 residents (R) (R57, R28, R54, R186, R73, R30, R44, and R38) of 8 sampled residents. This practice had the potential to affect all 74 residents residing in the facility. The facility's line list for a current gastrointestinal outbreak (GI) of Norovirus was inaccurate for R57, R28, R54, R186, and R73. R30 was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and had an EBP sign posted on R30's door. On 12/16/24, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-P repositioned R30 without wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). R44 was on EBP related to wounds and had an EBP sign posted on R44's door. On 12/17/24, CNA-L and Medication Technician (MT)-M repositioned R44 without wearing the appropriate PPE. R38 was on EBP and had an EBP sign posted on R38's door. On 12/16/24, CNA-K exited R38's room…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-12-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — pattern
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of 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 observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure call lights were in reach for 5 residents (R) (R44, R10, R60, R38, and R285) of 21 sampled residents. R44, R10, R60, R38, and R285 were dependent on staff for mobility and cares. During observations on 12/16/24 and 12/17/24, R44, R10, R60, R38, and R285's call lights were not within reach. Findings include: On 12/17/24, Surveyor requested the facility's call light policy. The policy was not provided to Surveyor. 1. From 12/16/24 to 12/18/24, Surveyor reviewed R44's medical record. R44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, palliative care, right and left hand contractures, and visual disturbance. R44's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/22/24, indicated R44 was rarely/never understood. The MDS also indicated R44 had highly impaired vision. R44's care plan indicated R44 had right and left hand contractures with splints to both hands and 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-12-18 · tag F0623 — pattern
  Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a written transfer notice was provided for 1 resident (R) (R11) of 6 residents reviewed for hospitalization. In addition, the facility did not ensure the Ombudsman was notified of hospital transfers for 6 (R11, R33, R21, R30, R59, and R82) of 6 residents. R11 was transferred to the hospital on 2/22/24 and 5/1/24. Neither R11 or R11's Power of Attorney (POA) were provided with a written transfer notice for R11's 5/1/24 hospital transfer. In addition, the facility did not notify the Ombudsman of R11's hospital transfers. R33 was transferred to the hospital on 8/7/24. The facility did not notify the Ombudsman of R33's hospital transfer. R21 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The facility did not notify the Ombudsman of R21's hospital transfer. R30 was transferred to the hospital on 6/30/24. The facility did not notify the Ombudsman of R30's hospital transfer. R59 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/13/24. The facility did…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-12-18 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a physician was notified when 1 resident (R) (R186) of 1 sampled resident had a blood sugar outside the parameters of a physician's order. R186 had an order to notify the physician if R186's blood sugar was higher than 400 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) or less than 60 mg/dL. On 12/15/24, R186's blood sugar was 409 mg/dL. R186's physician was not notified. Findings include: The facility's Notification of Change policy, revised 11/2022, indicates: The community will consult the resident's Physician, Nurse Practitioner, or Physician Assistant and notify the resident representative or an interested family member when there is: .acute illness or a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (i.e., deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications) .A need to alter treatment significantly means a need to stop a form of treatment because of…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to SSM HEALTH — 2 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes:

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 72 rows in the source record cover these 49 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $345K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in WI