Golden Years of Lake Geneva
611 Harmony Drive, Lake Geneva, WI 53147 · For profit - Corporation · 54 certified beds · (262) 249-1960 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 fell from 4 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 | 19.6% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 13.3% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 2.1% | 0.9% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 12.7% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| 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 | 6.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.9% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.1% | 16.9% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.0% | 5.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 38.1% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.0% | 15.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.2% | 82.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.0% | 23.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.0% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.79 | 1.66 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.35 | 2.29 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
63.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 187 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 31.2% 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 138 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 0.58 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 63.1%CMS range 55.9–69.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.6%CMS range 8.4–16.0 | 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 | 31.2% | 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 | 26.1% | 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 | 29.7% | 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 | 98.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 1.2% | 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 | 2.3% | 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 | 5.6%CMS range 3.0–9.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 54 beds and averages 42.0 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 12 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 4.14 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.43 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 3.86 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.26 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-09 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one of five residents (Resident (R) 1) reviewed received his pain medications as ordered creating the potential for increased discomfort. Findings include: Review of the facility's 2024 policy titled, Pain Assessment and management revealed The care team will respect and support every patient's right to optimal pain relief through education, initial and ongoing assessment, and effective and appropriate pain management. Review of the Face Sheet located under the Demographics tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unilateral primary osteoarthritis, left knee; open wound of lower back and pelvis without penetration into retroperitoneum; non-pressure chronic ulcer of other part of right foot limited to breakdown of skin. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 10/06/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150 B of the Act for 1 (R11) of 1 residents reviewed for an allegation of a crime. R11 alleged facility staff forced her to take a shower and slammed her into the wall. R11's allegation of abuse was not reported timely to local law enforcement. Findings include: R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Anxiety disorder. R11's quarterly MDS (minimum data set) dated 1/15/24 indicates R11 was assessed as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 which indicates R11 is cognitively intact. On 2/7/24, at 9:37 AM, R11 was interviewed by this Surveyor and reported a few days ago she was forced to take a shower against her will and was slammed into the wall. R11 indicated she would like the allegation reported right away and taken care of. On 2/7/24, at 9:45 AM, this Surveyor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview & record review, the Facility did not ensure that 1 (R11) of 1 resident alleged incidents of physical abuse was thoroughly investigated, and the results of the investigation reported to the State Agency. R11 alleged staff forced her to take a shower and slammed her into the wall. The allegation was not thoroughly investigated as all staff involved were not interviewed, a physical assessment was not completed for injuries and other residents were not interviewed to see if they had similar concerns. Findings include: R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Anxiety disorder. R11's quarterly MDS (minimum data set) dated 1/15/24 indicate R11 was assessed as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 which indicates R11 is cognitively intact. On 2/7/24, at 9:37 AM, Surveyor interviewed R11 who indicated a few days ago she was forced to take a shower against her will and was slammed into the wall. R11 indicated she would like the allegation reported right…
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 · Dcited before2024-02-08 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 (R134) of 1 Residents observed during medication pass with a gastronomy tube (G-tube) receives the appropriate treatment and services. R134's G-tube placement was not checked prior to administering medication via the G-tube. Findings include: R134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Dysphasia. On 2/7/24, at 7:45 AM, Registered Nurse (RN)-C was observed administering medication to R134. RN-C prepared the medication then flushed R134's gastronomy tube with water. RN-C-then administered R134's medication one at a time flushing the tube with water between each medication and after the administration was complete. Immediately after the observation RN-C was interviewed and indicated it is the facility's policy not to check gastronomy tube placement by any means before administration of medication or feeding formula. On 2/7/24, Surveyor reviewed the Facility's policy and procedure titled: Tube Feeding…
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 · D2022-11-10 · 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 interview, observation and record review, the facility did not ensure that a resident with a deep tissue injury receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new deep tissue injuries from developing for 1 (R6) of 4 residents reviewed for pressure injuries. R6 developed a deep tissue injury and the facility did not implement an intervention put in place to promote healing. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled Pressure Ulcer Treatment, dated 2020, states: A. To promote tissue healing. B. To prevent further tissue breakdown by relieving pressure, reducing friction and shear, correcting or containing incontinence, improving nutritional status, and educating resident and/or significant other. C. Follow established treatment program focused on assessment of resident and pressure ulcer. Section B: Plan: 1. Reduce or eliminate causative factors: pressure, shear, friction, moisture, circulatory…
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 · Dcited before2022-11-10 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 (R19) of 1 Residents observed during medication pass with a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) receives the appropriate treatment and services. R19's G-tube placement was not checked prior to administering medication via the G-tube. Findings include: R19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Cancer of the tonsils and thyroid gland as well as Dysphasia On 11/10/22 the facilities policy and procedure titled Tube Feeding dated 2018 was reviewed and read: Assess tube placement by aspirating stomach contents. The policy does not say how often placement should be checked. On 11/9/22 at 11:37 AM the surveyor observed Registered Nurse (RN)-G administer medication to R19's G-tube. RN-G flushed R19's G-Tube to which no tube feeding was running prior and then administered 50 milligrams of liquid Vancomycin via R19's G-tube. RN-G then flushed R19's G-Tube with more water and hooked her up to her feeding pump. RN-G did…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-11-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure residents received their medications. This was discovered with 2 (R3 and R16) of 4 residents that did not receive their medication as ordered. R3 and R4 had medications that were not administered to them as ordered. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure for Medications, dated 1/2018, was reviewed by Surveyor. The procedure includes: Identify resident by name before administration and observe that all medications are taken. 1.) R3's medical record was reviewed. The Progress Note on 11/01/2022 at 5:40 AM indicates the Writer found a cup of medications in resident medication cabinet containing the following: - one acetaminophen 325 mg(milligram) tablet - two Seroquel 25 mg tabs - one 2 mg loperamide tab - one 5-325 mg Norco The DON-B (Director of Nurses) was notified. R3 takes these medications twice a day and therefore hard to determine which shift the error occurred on. R3 was admitted on Hospice care on 5/8/22…
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 · D2022-11-10 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 psychotropic PRN (as needed) medication had indications for long term use. This was discovered with 2 (R3 and R2) of 4 residents reviewed for medication. R3 and R2 have received PRN Ativan beyond 14 days without indications for use to continue. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure for Use of Psychotropic Medications/Psychotropic Medication Reviews, dated 1/2018, was reviewed by Surveyor. The policy indicates: The goal of the facility is to make every effort to practice according to current medical guidelines and best practices related to the use of psychopharmacological medications in the long term care facility, to include regular reviews, continued need, appropriate dosage, side effects and risks and benefits. 1.) R3's medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R3 was admitted on Hospice care on 5/8/22 for Dementia. R3 has an activated POA (Power of Attorney). R3 had a Quarterly MDS (minimum data set) assessment on 9/2/22…
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 · D2022-11-10 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 it maintained a medication error rate below 5 percent during observations of medication administration affecting 1 (R18) of 5 residents observed. Two medication errors were observed out of thirty-one opportunities, for a total error rate of 6.45%. * R18 was administered Potassium Chloride Extended Release 10 Millequivalents (MEQ) extended release and Sublingual (under the tongue) Vitamin B12 1,000 milligrams (MG) crushed when they should not have been. Findings include: On 11/10/22 the website Drugs.com was reviewed for instructions on how to take Potassium Chloride extended release and read: Do not crush, chew, break, or suck on an extended-release tablet or capsule. Swallow the pill whole. Breaking or crushing the pill may cause too much of the drug to be released at one time. On 11/10/22 the website Drugs.com was reviewed for instructions on how to take sublingual vitamin B12 and read: Place under tongue and let dissolve all…
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 · C2024-02-08 · tag F0623 — widespreadProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 (R11) of 1 sampled residents reviewed for a facility initiated discharge received a written transfer/discharge notice that included the date of transfer, reason for transfer, location of transfer, appeal rights and contact information of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. R11 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 12/6/23. R11 and their representative was not provided a written notice of transfer. Findings include: R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 2/7/24, the Surveyor reviewed R11's medical record which indicated R11 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 12/6/23. The resident's medical record did not include documentation that a transfer notice had been given to the resident and/or their representative related to the hospitalization. On 2/8/24, at 10:06 AM, the Surveyor interviewed Director of Nurses (DON)-B who indicated they could not find a written transfer notice for R11's transfers to the hospital on [DATE] 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.
- No harm found · C2024-02-08 · tag F0625 — widespreadNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 (R11) of 1 residents reviewed for transfers or therapeutic leave received a written bed hold notice with the specific duration of the bed hold and policy information. Findings include: R11 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 12/6/23. R11 and their representative was not provided a written bed hold notice. Findings include: R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 2/7/24, the Surveyor reviewed R11's medical record and it indicated R11 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 12/6/23. The resident's medical record did not include documentation that a bed hold notice had been given to the resident and their representative for the hospitalizations. On 2/8/24, at 10:06 AM, the Surveyor interviewed Director of Nurses (DON)-B who indicated they could not find a bed hold notice for R11's transfers to the hospital on [DATE] and 12/6/23. On 2/8/24, this Surveyor reviewed the Facility's policy titled Bed Hold Policy dated 7/17 which…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUSTIN, JEFFREY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 25% | since 01/01/2017 |
| AUSTIN, LINDA SUSAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 23% | since 01/01/2017 |
| STANKEVITZ, JONATHAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 25% | since 01/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in WI
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Wisconsin Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 525727. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-07, 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.