Marinuka Manor
19475 Silver Creek Rd, Galesville, WI 54630 · Non profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (608) 582-2211 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (8% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.9% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 2.1% | 0.9% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 2.7% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.8% | 5.7% | 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 | 2.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.5% | 18.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.8% | 16.9% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.3% | 24.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.2% | 15.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.1% | 23.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 22.0% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 36.4% 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 22 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 23% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 36.4% | 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 | 13.6% | 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 | 27.3% | 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 | 96.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 50 beds and averages 34.3 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.85 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.21 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 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 3.37 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.03 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.36 to 0.83 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 8% is below 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2023-11-01 · 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 record review, the facility did not designate a person to serve as the director of food and nutrition services who had completed the minimum qualification requirements for the position. This practice could potentially affect all 33 residents residing in the facility. The facility does not have a director of food and nutrition services with the minimum requirements or a full time registered dietitian on site. Findings include: On 10/30/23 at 9:30 AM, Surveyor performed the initial walkthrough of the kitchen with Dietary Supervisor (DS) M. Surveyor asked DS M what qualifications they held that allowed them to assume the role of Dietary Supervisor. DS M said they had ServSafe certification, and they were working on completing a course that would qualify them as a Certified Dietary Manager. On 10/31/23 at 1:59 PM, Surveyor interviewed DS M regarding the oversight of a registered dietitian. DS M said they have a registered dietitian they work with, and they come only on Monday to complete the tasks required of a registered dietitian. The registered dietitian is…
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 · F2023-11-01 · 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 record review, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the potential to affect all 33 of 33 residents residing in the facility. Dietary Supervisor (DS) M and Dietary Aide (DA) N did not use a hair restraint over their beards while preparing, serving, and operating in the kitchen. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled Infection Control - Dress Code 2.4, not dated, states in part: A. All staff must have their hair restrained in a hairnet Men should be clean shaven or they will be required to wear a beard net. On 10/30/23 at 9:30 AM, Surveyor performed the initial walkthrough of the kitchen with DS M. The Surveyor observed that DS M had a noticeable beard approximately ½ in long protruding from behind the mask they wore. The mask did not cover all the beard, only around the mouth area. The surveyor also observed that DA N had a noticeable beard that protruded from behind the surgical mask that they wore. Both individuals had full beards that…
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 · F2023-11-01 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. This has the potential to affect all 33 of 33 residents residing in the facility. The facility did not ensure the garbage dumpster lids were closed; this was observed multiple times during the survey. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Pest Control, not dated, states: Ongoing measures are taken to prevent, contain, and eradicate household pests such as roaches, ants, mosquitoes, flies, mice and rats All state and local regulations are followed. On 10/30/23 at 9:30 AM, Surveyor performed the initial walkthrough of the kitchen with Dietary Supervisor (DS) M. When looking at the garbage dumpsters, Surveyor observed them to be open. On 10/31/23 at 8:52 AM, Surveyor observed the large blue dumpster located outside, near the dietary employee entrance and the outdoor freezer, was open and not covered. On 10/31/23 at 1:59 PM, Surveyor observed that the large blue garbage dumpster was not covered and was open. On 11/01/23 at approximately 1:35 PM, Surveyor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-11-01 · 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 record review, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility did not a have a clear water management process or plan in effect to prevent transmission of Legionella infection. This has potential to effect 33 of 33 residents reviewed. Observations were made of laundry and nursing staff not performing hand hygiene with delivery of linens to residents. Registered Nurse (RN) D did not wear appropriate PPE during wound care for R4; staff did not use the proper technique by putting a barrier under R4's foot during wound care to ensure that R4 would be free from the spread of infection. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C did not complete proper hand hygiene when providing personal cares to R13. Proper signage was not used for R4 who is on precautions due 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 · D2023-11-01 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility did not ensure personal protection of resident medical records for 1 of 1 resident (R2). Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) F did not ensure personal protection of R2's medical records when leaving the medication cart in the hallway unattended and the computer screen open. Findings include: The facility's policy entitled, Medication Administration, reads in part Any personal information must be hidden when not in use (cover report sheets, minimize or close computer screen). On 10/31/23 at 7:21 AM, Surveyor observed a medication cart in the 200-hallway unattended. When Surveyor walked past the medication cart the computer screen was opened. R2's information was up on the computer screen so anyone walking by could see the information. Approximately 3 - 5 minutes later, LPN F returned to the medication cart. On 11/01/23 at 8:03 AM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Medical Assistant (MA) G and asked what their process was when leaving medication cart. CNA/MA G indicated they lock the cart, cover up any papers with…
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 · D2023-11-01 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop 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 record review and interview, the facility did not implement policy and procedures related to screening employees for a prior history of abuse, neglect, exploitation of residents, or misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 8 employees reviewed. The facility did not ensure their abuse policy was implemented when one employee's background information disclosure (BID) was last obtained on 09/17/18. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled Allegations of mistreatment/neglect/abuse/injuries of unknown source, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation, and resident to resident altercations, revised, November 2018 states in part The BID, IBIS, OIG and DOJ checks are completed every four years by the Human Resources Department. On 10/31/23, Surveyor reviewed 8 random staff Background Information Disclosures (BID) as part of the caregiver program compliance check. Surveyor was reviewing a BID for Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) H; the form was dated 09/17/18. Surveyor reviewed the Department of Justice report that was attached, and it had the date 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide appropriate care and treatment for 1 of 2 sampled residents (R) (R13) who were at risk for pressure injuries. R13 was observed in bed in a supine position without being repositioned and without heels being elevated for 4 hours. Findings include: The facility policy entitled, Repositioning, dated 6/2022, states in part: Staff will ensure resident is repositioned per the resident plan of care or [NAME], residents will be given pressure relieving devices for impaired or risk of impaired skin integrity. Guidelines from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) 2016, Pressure Injury Prevention Points, accessed 02, November 2023, Prevention Points | National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (npiap.com), states in part: Turn and reposition all individuals at risk for pressure injury, turn the individual into a 30-degree side lying position and use your hand to determine if the sacrum is off the bed, ensure that the heels are free…
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 · D2023-11-01 · 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 record review, the facility did not ensure pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident, for 1 of 2 residents (R) observed receiving insulin. (R4) Staff did not follow current standard of practice of priming the insulin pen prior to setting the dose to be administered to ensure the insulin pen and needle are working and the air was removed to ensure the correct amount of insulin would be administered. Findings include: Facility policy entitled, Insulin Administration stated in part, .If using an insulin pen, cleanse hub then, prime pen with 2 units .: On 10/31/23 at 7:55 AM, Surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) F prepare two insulin pens (Lispro and Humulin) for administration to R4. LPN F took two insulin pens out of medication drawer and verified medication labels with medication orders on the Medication Administration Record. LPN F removed the cap from the Humulin insulin pen and wiped tip of the pen with alcohol pad. LPN F…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-11-01 · tag F0623 — widespreadProvide 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of hospital transfers for 2 residents (R27 and R11) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization in the sample of 14. The facility failed to have a system in place to ensure notifying the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of hospital transfers. This had the potential to affect all 33 residents that reside in the facility. R27 was hospitalized from [DATE] through 09/12/23 and the Ombudsman was not notified of that transfer to the hospital. R11 was hospitalized from [DATE] through 03/20/23 and the Ombudsman was not notified of that transfer to the hospital. Findings include: Example 1 R27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, in part, of chronic kidney disease stage 3, heart failure, and vascular dementia. Record review identified R27 was cognitively impaired and had an activated Power of Attorney for Health Care (POAHC). R27's son was the POAHC. Record review identified R27 was transferred to 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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRALEY, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2022 |
| HANSON, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2022 |
| KITE, CINDI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2018 |
| KOTNOUR, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/21/2015 |
| PASSE, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2019 |
| PATROS, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2017 |
| PEDACE, TERRI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2021 |
| QUARBERG, BRADLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/21/2014 |
| SACIE, BONITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2022 |
| SPILDE, STEVE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2017 |
| STROHM, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/21/2014 |
| WICHELT, JOYCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2014 |
| UBBELOHDE, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/26/2012 |
| ZEMAN, ELAINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/27/2021 |
| FEIRTAG, MEGAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/10/2022 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
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
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 Wisconsin 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 525628. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-11, 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.