Christian Community Home
1320 Wisconsin St, Hudson, WI 54016 · Non profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (715) 386-9303 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $5,293 in federal fines (most recent 2023-11-06)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 3 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 | 7.1% | 16.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.9% | 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 | 0.8% | 2.7% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.7% | 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 | 2.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.1% | 18.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.9% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.2% | 5.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.1% | 24.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.6% | 15.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.1% | 82.2% | 79.4% | typical |
‡ 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.
59.7% 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 54 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.1% 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 35 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 0.54 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 59.7%CMS range 48.9–68.6 | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 6.0–14.3 | 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 | 57.1% | 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 | 60.0% | 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 | 54.3% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 3.0–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 50 beds and averages 37.2 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.48 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.62 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.86 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.39 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.60 to 1.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-02-12 · 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 that 1 of 4 residents (R16) reviewed for pressure injuries (PI) received care consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent potential skin breakdown and promote healing of existing PIs. R16 was at risk for PI on admission having no PIs, weekly PI assessments were not completed consistently, physician was not notified with changes in the PI, alternate support surfaces were not provided when skin issues were noted. The PI care plan was not developed until 2 months after the identification of the stage 3 PI. Offloading of the PI was not observed by Surveyor. This is cited at actual harm. Findings include: The facility policy, titled Prevention of skin breakdown, revised [DATE], states: .D. Repositioning: a. Reposition bed-bound persons at least every two hours and chair bound persons every hour to hour and half consistent with overall goals of care . The facility policy titled Weekly skin rounds/Quality Assurance Review,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-02-12 · 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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the chemical sanitation used in the 3-compartment sink for dishwashing was the correct concentration per manufacturer's guidelines. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents who are served food from the facility's kitchen. This is evidenced by: Facility policy titled, Resource: Sanitation of Dishes/Manual Washing, dated 2021, states in part: Manual washing using chemical to sanitize: - An exposure time of at least 10 seconds for a chlorine solution of 50mg/L that has a pH of 10 or less and a temperature of at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit; -Or a pH of 8 or less and a temperature of at least 75 degrees Fahrenheit; - An exposure time of at least 30 seconds for other chemical sanitizing solutions per manufacturer. Quaternary Ammonium Compound Solutions - Minimum 75 degrees Fahrenheit - Concentration as indicated by manufacturer - Used only in water with 500 mg (milligrams)/L (Liter) hardness or less, or in water with a hardness no greater than specified by the manufacturer. The facility did not have…
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 · E2025-02-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that ensured the accurate acquiring, dispensing, administering and disposal of all drugs and biologicals. The facility did not ensure controlled medications were disposed of timely for 11 out of 11 residents (R) observed during medication storage observation. (R1, R2, R289, R290, R291, R292, R293, R294, R295, R296, R298). The facility did not ensure proper dose of topical medication was administered for 1 out of 1 resident (R9). Findings include: Example 1 The facility policy titled Controlled Substance Accountability, dated June 2023, states in part: .Disposing of Narcotics 1. All narcotics will be destroyed according to Pharmacy and Regulatory timelines . The Statute DHS 132.65 Pharmaceutical Services refers to the handling of medication in Wisconsin facilities, including hospitals and nursing homes. It states in part: .(c) Destruction of medications. 1. 'Time limit.' Unless otherwise…
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 · D2025-02-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not provide necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. This occurred for 1 of 1 sampled resident being reviewed for heart failure with increased edema, Resident (R) R17. R17 had no edema in lower extremities on admission. R17 was observed to have 3+ pitting edema in left lower extremity on 02/12/25. The facility did not assess or add interventions to decrease increasing edema for R17. Facility did not complete weekly assessments for heart failure inlcuding missed weights weekly. This is evidenced by: According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Congestive Heart Failure (CHF): Nursing Diagnosis, 2023, indicates nurse assessment of CHF is to assess current symptoms such as dyspnea, fatigue, orthopnea, peripheral edema, vital signs, cardiovascular examination such as (abnormal heart sounds, jugular venous distention), respiratory examination such as (auscultate lung sounds for…
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 · D2025-02-12 · 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 a resident with limited mobility receives appropriate restorative services, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility with the maximum practicable independence for 1 out of 2 sampled residents (R7). R7 was not ambulated per recommendation of Physical Therapy (PT) or receive restorative exercises per recommendation of PT. This is evidenced by: R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R7's diagnoses included cerebral infarction unspecified, type 2 diabetes mellitus, history of falling, essential hypertension, and unspecified diastolic congestive heart failure. R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], confirmed R7 scored 12 out of 15 during Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate impaired cognition. R7 understands and is understood by others, and he can make his needs known. R7 needs partial to moderate assistance with toileting, sit to stand, and ambulation. Surveyor reviewed R7's PT recommendations…
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 · D2025-02-12 · 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 Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 1 of the 4 residents reviewed for falls (R7), received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents. The facility did not follow R7's care plan: -CNA did not apply gait belt to R7 during transfer to toilet as care planned. -CNA did not lock R7's wheelchair brakes during transfer from wheelchair to bed. -Staff did not apply pressure alarm in recliner as care planned. -R7 was observed self-transferring to toilet without staff assistance for 2 different events. This is evidenced by: R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R7's diagnoses included cerebral infarction unspecified, type 2 diabetes mellitus, history of falling, essential hypertension, and unspecified diastolic congestive heart failure. R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], confirmed R7 scored 12 out of 15 during Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate impaired cognition. R7 understands and is understood by others, and he can make…
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 · D2025-02-12 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure each residents' drug regimen was free from unnecessary medications for 1 of 13 sampled residents (R4). R4 was prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic without adequate indications for use. R4 at times was prescribed excessive dose (duplicate drug therapy) when two antibiotics were given at the same time. This is evidenced by: R4 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, urinary retention, multiple sclerosis, prostate cancer, neurogenic bladder, and reoccurring urinary tract infections (UTIs). R4's physician orders dated 06/18/24, state in part: Macrodantin 100 mg daily for reoccurring UTIs. R4's physician had changed his orders from Doxycycline prophylactically for recurrent UTIs to Macrodantin. R4 had been on Doxycycline since admission. R4 was last seen by urology in 2022. The urology note from 2022 makes no mention of the use of prophylactic antibiotics, at that time, even though R4 was receiving daily Doxycycline prophylactically. R4 was diagnosed with a UTI on 12/06/24 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 · Fcited before2024-01-04 · 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 by not wearing hairnets appropriately, and did not ensure proper hand hygiene with food handling. This has the potential to affect all 26 of 26 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled Company Dress Code, dated December 2023, states in part: All those in the kitchen must wear hair restraint (i.e., Hairnet, CCHS ball cap, chef's hat, bonnet). On 01/02/24 at 9:08 AM, Surveyor observed Dietary Aide (DA) K wearing a hat that had their ponytail protruding from the cap. The ponytail was not restrained with a hair net and was exposed to the kitchen area. On 01/02/24 at 11:48 AM, Surveyor observed DA J not wearing a hair net while dishing up food from serving area. Surveyor noted hair was noticeable on DA J's head and could be seen from across the dining room; no hair net was observed. On 01/02/24 at 11:55 AM, Surveyor interviewed DA J regarding the lack of a hair net. DA…
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 · F2024-01-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections; the facility did not have a clear water management process or plan in effect to prevent transmission of Legionella infection. This has the potential to affect 26 of the 26 residents reviewed. Improper hand hygiene occurred for 5 of 26 residents. (R21, R15, R23, R8, and R12.) Improper use of PPE for 2 of 2 resident observations (R181, R183). Findings: Example 1 The facility policy entitled, Water Management for Legionnaires' Disease, states in part: Facility will identify and manage the risks arising from exposure to Legionella bacteria in water systems, and complete flow diagrams for proper control measures to avoid infections. The facility's Water Management Plan (WMP) was not based on current standards of practice and did not: - Describe the building's water system in the policy and in a flow diagram of the system to include an assessment of the facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-04 · tag F0563 — failed to protect the right to visitors — isolatedHonor the resident's right to receive visitors of his or her choosing, at the time of his or her choosing.
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 interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure the right of a resident to receive visitors at the time of their choosing for 1 (R181) of 1 resident reviewed for visitation rights. The facility restricted R181's family's immediate access to R181 during a decline in health conditions related to COVID-19 infection. Findings include: R181 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of fall with T8-T9 spinal fractures, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, neurogenic bladder, diabetes mellitus, and arthritis. Surveyor reviewed R181's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] which documents R181's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score to be a 13, indicating R181 was cognitively intact for daily decision-making. The facility provided Surveyor with a copy of a progress note regarding R181. The progress notes document in part, on 12/28/23 at 3:04 pm, R181's daughter called and asked about coming to visit R181. R181's daughter was informed by the Director of Nursing (DON) B that R181 should 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-04 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, medical record review and facility document review, the facility did not have a comprehensive system for ensuring residents received influenza immunizations, for 1 of 5 sampled residents, (R181). This is evidenced by: The CDC Influenza Vaccine Timing for Adults reads, in part: One dose of Influenza vaccine is recommended for adults each flu season . Surveyor requested a list of current residents and their influenza, pneumococcal, and COVID-19 immunization dates. R181's immunization record stated influenza immunization last received was on 11/02/22. On 12/13/23, influenza vaccination was listed as being: Historical. No actual dates of these immunizations had been obtained to verify R181 was up to date with his influenza immunization. Surveyor reviewed a consent form signed on 12/12/23 titled, Consent to administer Influenza vaccine, signed by R181 which indicated the desire to receive the influenza vaccination from the facility. Surveyor reviewed the physician's order dated 12/12/23 which stated in part, Administer influenza vaccine upon admission on e time at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-11-10 · 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 policy review, the facility failed to distribute food under sanitary conditions. This has the potential to affect 30 of the 30 residents that reside at the facility. Staff was observed to be working with food without a hair restraint in place to cover all hair. During dishwashing, Staff was observed to touch a item that fell on the floor and then remove dirty gloves and replace gloves without hand washing. During meal service, Staff was observed to touch a resident's foot and slipper and then return to serving food without hand washing. The [NAME] was observed to serve food at tray line with his facial mask below his nose or chin. This is evidenced by The facility policy entitled Hair Restraints dated October 2011 states in part; Hair .must be secured and pulled up, must wear hair restraint (i.e. Hairnet, .). The facility policy entitled Handwashing dated October 2011 states in part; When to wash hands . After handling soiled equipment or utensils after engaging in other activities that contaminate the hands. The facility policy entitled Bare Hand…
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
$5,293 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $5,293 — penalty dated 2023-11-06
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANDERSON, ELLIOT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2022 |
| BEBAULT, MIKE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2026 |
| DUNHAM, RHONDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2026 |
| FAHS, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| GERRITTS, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| GIBSON, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| JOHNSON, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| MORK, AARON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| SCHWAB, DEBRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| SIMONSON, DARYL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| STAEBELL, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| STARR, JACK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| ZAJAC, CLAIRE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| KACZROWSKI, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/06/2022 |
| KLINGFUS, PAMELA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/17/2021 |
| CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY HOMES AND SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/1980 |
| FIELD, THOMAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2010 |
| ORMAN, JENNIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2006 |
| WINTERGREEN APARTMENTS, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/28/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 38 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $352K 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 525626. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.