Complete Care at Southpointe
4500 W. Loomis Rd., Greenfield, WI 53220 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 174 certified beds · (414) 325-5300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Mar 2026
- 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
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 2 to 3 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 | 4.9% | 16.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.5% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 47.4% | 5.7% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.3% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.2% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.5% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.1% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.3% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.3% | 15.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 79.5% | 82.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.0% | 23.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.4% | 15.5% | 12.0% | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
55.8% 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 105 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.5% 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 44 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 25% 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 | 55.8%CMS range 46.6–63.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.7%CMS range 8.8–15.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 45.5% | 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 | 40.9% | 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 | 34.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 3.7% | 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 | 5.5%CMS range 2.6–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 174 beds and averages 98.2 residents a day — about 56% occupied, or roughly 76 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 3.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-08-17 · 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 3) R19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and has diagnoses that include Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes, mild protein-calorie malnutrition, muscle weakness, physical debility, peripheral vascular disease, neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, history of cerebrovascular accident, and right and left below the knee amputations. R19's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R19 had severely impaired cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 and the facility assessed R19 to require extensive assist with bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and total dependence with transferring using a Hoyer lift, and hygiene. R19 had a suprapubic catheter and was incontinent of stool. R19 had impairment to upper and lower extremities and had a high risk for developing pressure injuries with a Braden score of 9.0 on 8/9/2022. R19's potential for skin issues related to history of pressure injury related to incontinence and decreased mobility care plan initiated on 4/12/2018 had the following…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-08-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 3.) R83's diagnoses includes diabetes mellitus, aphasia, cerebrovascular disease, and hypertension. The at risk for falls care plan initiated [DATE] & revised [DATE] documents the following interventions: * 42 inch bed keep needed items within reach ask resident what to place in reach. Initiated [DATE] & revised [DATE]. * Floor matt. Initiated [DATE] & revised [DATE]. * Low bed position. Initiated [DATE] & revised [DATE]. * Med review and [name] consult [DATE] MD (medical doctor) ordered labs. Initiated [DATE] & revised [DATE]. * Be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. Initiated [DATE]. * Body pillow to right side when in bed to define bed parameters. Initiated [DATE] & revised [DATE]. * Bolstered Mattress. Frequent checks and incontinent care. Initiated & revised [DATE]. * Continue current fall interventions. Initiated [DATE] & revised [DATE]. * Dycem to wc (wheel chair) at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-03-12 · 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 ensure 1 out of 2 residents (R20) admitted to the facility with a history of pressure injuries received the necessary care and treatment services to avoid developing a pressure injury.R20 has a significant past medical history of pressure injuries, including needing surgical intervention with skin flaps to heal previous pressure injuries. R20 was at risk for the development of pressure injuries based upon this history. The facility failed to recognize R20's risk factors and implement resident specific measures to prevent the development of pressure injuries. R20 developed a facility acquired, full thickness, unstageable pressure injury.Findings include:Policy review: Pressure Injury Prevention Guidelines date implemented 1/26.Policy: to prevent the formation of avoidable pressure injuries and to promote healing of existing pressure injuries, it is the policy of this facility to implement evidenced-based interventions for all residents who…
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.
- Actual harm · G2023-08-17 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide 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 interview and record review the facility did not ensure adequate hydration for 1 (R108) of 1 resident reviewed for hydration. *R108 became dehydrated and needed to receive Intravenous (IV) rehydration. The facility did not implement interventions to prevent dehydration from occurring again, and R108 had to be sent to the hospital for IV insertion to receive IV fluids a second time. Findings include: The facility policy entitled, Hydration, dated 10/12/2022 documented, The facility offers each resident sufficient fluid, including water and other liquids, consistent with resident needs and preferences to maintain proper hydration and health . 1. The facility will utilize a systemic approach to optimize the resident's hydration a. Identifying and assessing each resident's hydration status and risk factors b. Evaluating/analyzing the assessment information c. Developing and consistently implementing pertinent approaches d. Monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and revising them as necessary 2.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2026-03-12 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the mandatory staffing data submitted for the fourth quarter of 2025 (July 1- September 31) was accurate based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). During review of the payroll-based-journal (PBJ) staffing data for the facility, the facility was triggered for excessively low weekend staffing. This had the potential to affect all 92 residents. Findings include: The facility's Assessment was reviewed, including staffing hours and acuity levels of care being provided. The facility's assessment documented the ratio for staffing needs per resident in the facility and triggered for low weekend staffing for the fourth quarter of 2025. Surveyor reviewed nursing schedules, along with the nurse staff posting hours for that time period and noted that there were no documented trends or gaps in weekend staff coverage. On 3/11/2026, at 12:41 PM, Surveyor interviewed Scheduler-M about the nurse and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-12 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop 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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure their abuse policy and procedure was implemented for 1 of 8 employees reviewed for 4-year background checks potentially affecting a portion of the 97 residents residing in the facility. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-R did not have an up-to-date background check completed within the four-year time frame. Findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation dated 3/2/2026 documents: 1. 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. 2. Screenings may be conducted by the facility itself, third-party agency or academic institution. 3. The facility will maintain documentation of proof that the screening occurred. On 3/10/2026, Surveyor requested from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A the personnel…
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 · Ecited before2026-03-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety on the unit refrigerators for three of the four units in the facility, potentially affecting the residents residing on 3 units in the facility. *Unit 1 refrigerator was 52 degrees, above the facility determined temperature range. *Unit 2 refrigerator was 34 degrees, below the facility determined temperature range. *Unit 3 did not have a thermometer in the freezer as indicated in the facility policy. An undated bag of opened, unsealed mixed fruit was observed in the freezer. Findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled Monitoring of Refrigerator Temperature dated 5/2025 documents: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to maintain temperatures of coolers and freezers at the appropriate temperature to promote food safety. This policy also addresses refrigerated storage. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Logs will be kept at the nurses station for the freezer or refrigerator unit. a. Temperatures will be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 did not ensure 1 (R62) of 2 residents reviewed abuse, neglect, misappropriation and exploitation was free from misappropriation of funds and possible exploitation.On 10/31/25 the facility was notified by Adult Protective Services of an allegation Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-Q had misappropriated R62's funds. Investigation revealed CNA-Q misappropriated funds from R62 using their debit card but also convinced R62 to provide R62 with cash, R62's PayPal account information to link R62's PayPal account to CNA-Q's account, and use of R62's cell phone. Findings include:The facility policy titled Code of Conduct revised 11/2025 documents: Policy: The purpose of this policy is to guide employees with respect to standards of conduct expected by this company as part of its compliance and ethics program. Improper activities could damage the company's reputation and otherwise result in serious adverse consequences. All employees are expected to adhere to acceptable…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 1 (R5) of 7 Residents reviewed with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion.R5 has an active MD order for a left palm guard to be worn. Surveyor observed R5 without a left palm guard in place multiple times during survey. R5's left palm guard was not part of R5's Comprehensive Care plan or Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Kardex.Findings include: The facility policy with an implemented date of 1/26 and titled, Range of Motion, document, in part: Residents who enter the facility without limited range of motion will not experience a reduction in range of motion unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that a reduction in range of motion is unavoidable. Based on the comprehensive assessment, the facility will provide interventions, exercises and/or therapy to maintain or improve range of motion. The facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-17 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 manual, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for three of 26 sampled residents (Resident (R) 23, R27, and R89) reviewed for MDS assessments. This deficient practice increased the potential for missed opportunities of care or services. Findings include: 1. Review of R23's undated admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab indicated an admission date of 04/01/24 and diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary hypertension and anxiety. Review of R23's quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/08/24, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed the resident was marked No for receiving hospice services. Review of R23's Progress Notes located in the EMR under the Progress Note tab, revealed R23 was receiving hospice services until her passing on 10/15/24. 2. Review of R27's undated admission Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-17 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for one of five residents (R)89) identified for smoking behaviors in the sample of 26. This failure has the potential to place the resident risk for unmet care needs and the inability to meet the maximum practicable level of functioning. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Smoking dated 05/31/23 indicated, .All safe smoking measures will be documented on each resident's care plan . Review of the facility's policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 9/2024 indicated, The care planning process will include an assessment of the resident's strengths and needs and will incorporate the resident's personal and cultural preferences in developing goals of care. Services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan, shall be culturally competent and trauma informed. Review of R89's admission Record located in the resident's EMR in the Profile tab revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-08-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program based on current standards of practice, designed to provide a safe environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all 99 residents residing in the facility. *The facility's Water Management Plan (WMP) did not identify the two water fountains (bubblers) as a potential risk for Legionella growth and did not identify appropriate control measures for prevention of Legionella growth in the dead legs of the water fountains (bubblers). Findings include: The facility water management policy, titled, Water Management Program, date revised 07/2023 documented, .3) A risk assessment will be conducted by the water management team annually to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens could grow and spread in the facility's water systems .5) Based on the risk assessment, control points will be identified. The list 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 · Ecited before2023-08-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 and interview the Facility did not ensure that food was prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 96 of 99 Residents that reside at the facility. On 07/26/23, Dietary Aide - JJ was observed touching ready to eat food with contaminated gloves and place the food on plates for residents to eat. Dietary Aide-JJ was observed removing their gloves and re-gloving without washing their hands. Findings include: On 07/26/23, at 11:58 a.m., Surveyor observe Dietary Aide- JJ begin the lunch tray line service that services all residents that eat meals prepared by the facility. Dietary Aide-JJ was observed to don gloves without washing her hands. At 12:00 PM, Dietary Aide-JJ was observed touch a bin with her gloved hands then pick up a plate with the same gloved hand. Dietary-JJ then picked up a large rectangular loaf of dinner rolls that were baked into a solid form with her left contaminated gloved hand, pull 3 dinner rolls off the larger rectangle with her right contaminated gloved hand, place one dinner roll 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-17 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure 1 (R11) out of 3 residents reviewed for indwelling catheters received the appropriate care. *R11 was admitted to the facility with an indwelling catheter and three weeks later was transferred to the hospital with a Urinary Tract Infection. Upon return to the facility, the facility did not assess the need for the indwelling catheter nor follow up with urology as recommended in the hospital discharge summary. Two months later in July, R11's catheter became clogged, and the facility was unable to irrigate it. At this point the physician noted R11's hospital discharge instructions and ordered a voiding trial. Findings include: Facility policy entitled, Indwelling Catheter Use and Removal, dated 10/22/23 documented, Policy Explanation: Indwelling urinary catheters are catheters that remain in the bladder to assist with urinary elimination. The use of indwelling catheters for managing incontinence is not appropriate and increase the risk 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 · D2023-08-17 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 did not ensure each Resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs for 1 (R458) of 5 Residents reviewed. R458's physician orders does not include parameters of when to notify the physician if R458 were to have low/high blood sugars. Findings include: The Insulin Pen policy revised 10/22 under policy explanation and compliance guidelines documents 5. Monitor blood sugar as ordered by physician. R458 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which includes diabetes mellitus. The physician orders dated 7/13/23 documents Insulin Aspart Solution 100 unit/ml (milliliter) (Insulin Aspart) Inject 12 units subcutaneously three times a day related to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with unspecified complications. The physician orders dated 7/13/23 documents Insulin Glargine-yfgn Subcutaneous Solution 100 unit/ml (Insulin Glargine-yfgn) Inject 25 unit subcutaneously at bedtime related to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with unspecified complications. Review 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.
- No harm found · C2026-03-12 · tag F0628 — widespreadProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that proper notification was sent to the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 6 (R1, R2, R3, R8, R10 and R103) of 6 residents reviewed for transfers or discharges. *R1 was transferred to the hospital on 8/5/25 and 10/23/25. The facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of R1's hospitalizations. *R2 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of R2's hospitalization. *R3 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of R3's hospitalization. *R8 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of R8's hospitalization. *R10 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 2/3/26. The facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of R10's hospitalizations. *R103 was transferred to the hospital on 1/8/26. The facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of R103's hospitalization. Findings include: On 3/11/26, Nursing Home…
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 · C2023-08-17 · 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 record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure the required information was provided to residents at the time of a transfer to the hospital. This was observed with 6 (R64, R59, R89, R103, R11, and R80) of 6 residents reviewed for hospital transfers. *R64's transfer notice did not include a statement of the resident's appeal rights, including the name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number of the entity which receives such requests; and information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request when transferred to the hospital on: 3/27/2023, 4/25/2023, 5/22/2023, and 7/8/2023 *R59's transfer notice did not include a statement of the resident's appeal rights, including the name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number of the entity which receives such requests; and information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request when transferred…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 84 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 84; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC SWI HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/01/2022 |
| PC SWI TOPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/01/2022 |
| SMS 2021 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/01/2022 |
| STEIN, SHALOM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| BIELINSKI, RENEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/11/2025 |
| HELLMAN, YOSEF | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| KASOMBO, ESTHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/11/2022 |
| PATEL, SURENDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/07/2024 |
| RIEBER, REBECCA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/25/2022 |
| STERNBUCH, DANIEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| DES CAPITAL LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| JRK INVESTMENTS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| PEACE CAPITAL HOLDINGS II LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| SOUTHPOINTE PROPCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| WI 6 PROPCO HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| WI 6 PROPCO TOPCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| KLUGMAN, JACOB | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 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 80% 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 $940K 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
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 525604. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.