Complete Care at Germantown

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.

53.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 88 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 62.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 29 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 52% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 121 beds and averages 52.6 residents a day — about 43% occupied, or roughly 68 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 3.75 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.29 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 3.26 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.94 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.62 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above 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.

18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · E2025-03-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  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 more than 4 of the 53 residents residing in the facility. The facility did not cool food with an approved food cooling method. Findings include: On 3/3/25, Dietary Manager (DM)-E indicated the facility follows their own food safety policies and procedures. The facility's undated Cooling Procedures document indicates: Foods must be cooled as quickly as possible to prevent the growth of bacteria as the food drops through the danger zone. For hot food: Cool from 135 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 70 degrees F in 2 hours or less and then from 70 degrees F to 41 degrees F in 4 hours or less. For food prepared at room temperature or using room temperature ingredients, cool from 70 degrees F to 41 degrees F in 4 hours or less. Cooling Methods: Refrigeration: Divide into smaller portions, use shallow 2 to 4 inch pans, do not cover until food reaches 41 degrees F, use containers that transfer heat (metal pans)…

  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 · D2025-03-05 · tag F0551 — isolated
  Give the resident's representative the ability to exercise the resident's 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 protective placement was obtained for 1 resident (R) (R3) of 3 sampled residents. R3 had a court-ordered Guardian and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The facility did not petition for protective placement when R3's stay exceeded 60 days. Findings include: Wisconsin State Statute 55.055(1)(b) indicates: The guardian of an individual who has been adjudicated incompetent may consent to the individual's admission to a nursing home or other facility not specified in par. (a) for which protective placement is otherwise required for a period not to exceed 60 days. In order to be admitted under this paragraph, the individual must be in need of recuperative care or be unable to provide for his or her own care or safety so as to create a serious risk of substantial harm to himself, herself, or others. Prior to providing that consent, the Guardian shall review the ward's right to the least restrictive residential environment and consent only 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-05 · tag F0623 — isolated
  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 notify the Ombudsman of hospital transfers for 3 residents (R) (R15, R39, and R4) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization. R15 was transferred to the hospital on 9/11/24. The facility did not notify the Ombudsmen of R15's hospital transfer. R39 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], 12/23/24 and 1/16/25. The facility did not notify the Ombudsmen of R39's hospital transfers. R4 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The facility did not notify the Ombudsmen of R4's hospital transfer. Findings include: The facility's Transfer and Discharge policy, revised 10/2024, indicates: .5. The facility will maintain evidence that the notice was sent to the Ombudsmen .10. Emergency Transfers to Acute Care: .h. The Social Services Director, or Designee, will provide copies of notices for emergency transfers to the Ombudsman, but they may be sent when practicable, such as in a list of residents monthly if the list meets all requirements for content 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
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-05 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  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 1 resident (R) (R46) of 2 sampled residents was screened through the Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II process to determine if nursing home placement was appropriate and if specialized services were required. The facility did not ensure completion of a Level II PASRR Screen for R46 or follow a Qualified Mental Health Professional's (QMHP) request to refile a Level II PASRR Screen if R46 remained in the facility. Findings include: On 3/4/25, Surveyor reviewed R46's medical record. R46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, sleep terrors, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and adjustment disorder with anxiety. R46's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/10/25, contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated R46 had intact cognition. On 3/4/25 at 10:37 AM, Surveyor reviewed a PASRR Level II…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-01-30 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — pattern
  Provide 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, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the accurate administration of drugs and biologicals for 5 residents (R) (R5, R20, R4, R7, and R9) of 20 sampled residents. On 1/30/25, medications were observed at R5, R20, R4, R7, and R9's bedsides. The residents did not have self-administration of medication assessments, physician orders to self-administer medication, or care plans that indicated they could safely and accurately self-administer medication. Findings include: The facility's Resident Self-Administration of Medication policy, revised 10/2024, indicates: 1. Eash resident is offered the opportunity to self-administer medication during the routine assessment by the facility's interdisciplinary team .14. The care plan must reflect resident self-administration and storage arrangements for such medications . On 1/30/25 at 10:37 AM, Surveyor interviewed R5 and observed dorzolamide ophthalmic eye drops, brimonidine ophthalmic eye drops, Biofreeze (topical pain reliever), Fast Freeze (topical pain reliever), and anti-fungal…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-17 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and resident interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150B of the Act when they did not ensure allegations of abuse and misappropriation were reported to the State Agency (SA) or local law enforcement for 3 residents (R) (R3, R4, and R9) of 11 sampled residents. Director of Nursing (DON)-B was informed of a resident-to-resident altercation between R3 and R4 on 6/17/24 in which R3 sustained a physical injury. The facility did not report the allegation of abuse to the SA or local law enforcement. The facility did not report an allegation of misappropriation of property for R9 to the SA or local law enforcement. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, dated January 2023, states it is the policy of the facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing…

  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 before2024-07-17 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  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 and resident interview and record review, the facility did not ensure allegations of abuse and misappropriation were thoroughly investigated for 3 residents (R) (R3, R4, and R9) of 11 sampled residents. Director of Nursing (DON)-B was informed of a resident-to-resident altercation between R3 and R4 on 6/17/24 in which R3 sustained a physical injury. The facility did not thoroughly investigate the allegation of abuse. R9 reported R9's wallet, debit card, and cash were missing. The facility did not thoroughly investigate the allegation of misappropriation. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, dated January 2023, indicates an immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur. Written procedures for the investigation include: 1. Identifying staff responsible for the investigation. 2. Exercising caution in handling evidence that could be used in a criminal investigation (e.g., not…

  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 before2024-05-08 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure an injury of unknown origin and allegation of sexual abuse were reported to the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), the State Agency (SA) and/or local law enforcement in a timely manner for 2 residents (R) (R1 and R2) of 7 sampled residents. On 4/10/24, the facility discovered R1 had a fracture of unknown origin. Staff did not immediately report the injury of unknown origin to NHA-A which delayed the facility's report to the SA. On 4/8/24, R2 alleged R2 was raped by a male nurse. Staff did not immediately report the allegation of sexual abuse to NHA-A which delayed the facility's report to the SA and local law enforcement. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, dated 11/22, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation…

  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 before2024-05-08 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  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 prevent further potential abuse during an investigation of sexual assault for 1 resident (R) (R2) of 7 sampled residents. R2 accused Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-F of sexual abuse on 4/8/24. The facility did not remove LPN-F from resident care pending the results of the investigation. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, dated 11/22, indicates facility staff should respond immediately to protect residents, including but not limited to, staffing changes and increased supervision. On 5/8/24, Surveyor reviewed R2's medical record. R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, depression, and anxiety. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/26/24, stated R2's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 6 out of 15 which indicated R2 had severely impaired cognition. R2 had an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC) at the time of admission. On 5/8/24, 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-01-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure scheduled showers were provided for 5 Residents (R) (R212, R22, R30, R38, R47) of 22 sampled residents. R212, R22, R30, R38, and R47 did not consistently receive scheduled showers. Findings include: 1. R212 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including difficulty in walking, and macular degeneration. R212's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/30/23, contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated R212 had intact cognition. The MDS indicated R212 required substantial or maximal assistance for showering and bathing. On 1/22/24 at 11:47 AM, Surveyor interviewed R212 who indicated R212 did not receive a weekly shower and received only a few showers since admission. R212 indicated R212 was fine with receiving a bed bath every other day, but indicated that did not always happen. On 1/23/24, Surveyor requested R212's shower documentation and shower schedule. On…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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 COMPLETE CARE — 85 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 →

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 26 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

9 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.

About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $480K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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

Cost & finances

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

What families pay in WI