No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Little Chute Health Services

1201 Garfield Ave, Little Chute, WI 54140 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 50 certified beds · (920) 788-5806 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0607) — cited May 2026Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)2 immediate-jeopardy citations1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$37,992 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • 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
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $37,992 in federal fines (most recent 2026-01-20)
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection 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.

1/5
CMS overall
1 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 1 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Pharmacy
219 W Main St · (920) 687-6193 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1901 E Main St · (920) 766-6090 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1509 E Lincoln Ave · (920) 788-7380 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
448 Prospect St · (920) 687-8877

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 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 fell from 3 to 1 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.

Overall rating1★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased5.0%16.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.7%5.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder8.5%2.1%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.7%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.2%5.7%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.0%3.3%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication15.1%16.9%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.8%5.0%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control28.3%24.6%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table17.9%15.8%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication3.0%1.2%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine77.8%82.2%79.4%typical

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. 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.

0.37U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFsnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.85
RN hours/ resident / day
1.04
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.31
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.20
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.53
RN hoursweekends
45.7%
Total nursing turnover
40.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 30.8 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 19 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 4.20 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 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 3.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.38 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-21)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-01)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

18 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2026-01-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not provide care and services to maintain the highest practicable physical well-being when they did not recognize and appropriately respond to a change in condition for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 6 sampled residents. On 12/23/25, R1 was admitted to the facility following a C3-C4 laminectomy (major spinal surgery in which part of the vertebra is removed). R1 was alert and oriented upon admission. From 12/24/25 to 12/29/25, R1 experienced a change in condition including decreased cognition, an oxygen saturation level of 79% which required continuous supplemental oxygen, an episode of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) that required 2 doses of glucose gel, and abnormal vital signs. During a care conference on 12/29/25, R1's family reported concerns to staff regarding R1's overall condition. On 12/30/25, R1 was unresponsive when a Registered Nurse (RN) attempted to administer medication. The RN did not assess R1, alert medical staff, or check R1's blood sugar.…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2026-01-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure adequate supervision, positioning, and assistive devices were provided during a meal for 1 resident (R) (R2) of 3 sampled residents.R2 had a history of aspiration. R2's care plan indicated R2 required 1:1 supervision for meals. The care plan contained interventions to encourage R2 to take small bites and clear mouth before the next bite, to seal R2's lips around the cup opening until R2 swallowed, and to be seated upright during meals and have a neck pillow in place for proper positioning. R2 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 12/22/25 for sepsis caused by urinary tract infection (UTI) and aspiration. On 1/15/26, Surveyor heard R2 coughing and observed R2 eating alone in R2's room with the curtain drawn and the head of the bed at 45 degrees. Staff were not in R2's room or in the hallway outside the room providing supervision. There was a large amount of food on R2's dignity cover and juice spilling out the right side…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-03-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure adequate supervision was provided for 1 resident (R) (R89) of 1 resident reviewed for elopement. Upon admission on [DATE], R89 was assessed to be at risk for elopement and a wanderguard (a security device that triggers an alarm if the wearer exits the facility) was placed on R89's right ankle. On 2/10/24 at 9:00 AM, a community member altered staff that R89 was a few blocks away from the facility. Staff were unaware R89 left the facility but were able to locate R89 and bring him back to the facility. An assessment indicated R89 had no injuries. The failure to provide adequate supervision created a finding of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) which began on 2/10/24. Surveyor notified Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A of the immediate jeopardy on 3/25/24 at 3:30 PM. The immediate jeopardy was removed and corrected on 2/10/24. Findings include: The facility's Elopement/Unsafe Wandering policy, with a review date of 8/9/22, indicates: This 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · G2026-01-20 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide 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, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not provide the necessary care and services to prevent the development of avoidable pressure injuries and/or promote healing for 2 residents (R) (R1 and R2) of 5 sampled residents. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] without any pressure injuries. A Braden Scale assessment completed upon admission indicated R1 was at high risk for the development of pressure injuries. R1 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with a bilateral sacral pressure injury with serosanguineous (a fluid mixture of serous fluid (clear plasma) and blood, appearing as thin, watery, pinkish or light red indicating mild capillary bleeding) drainage, a right posterior thigh pressure injury, and a right heel pressure injury. The facility was unaware of the pressure injuries. A skin integrity care plan for R1 was not initiated until 1/5/26 (which was six days after R1 was admitted to the hospital.) This example is being cited at a level G (actual harm/isolated). R2…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-21 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
    Develop 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure their abuse policy was implemented for 1 (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-G) of 8 employees reviewed for caregiver background checks. The facility did not complete an out-of-state background check for CNA-G. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, revised 7/15/22, indicates: .I. 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 .Background checks, including re-checks, will be completed consistent with applicable state laws and regulation .2. Screenings may be conducted by the facility itself, a third-party agency or academic institution. 3. The facility will maintain documentation of proof that the screening occurred . On 5/21/26 Surveyor requested background check information, including Background Information Disclosure (BID) forms, Department of Justice (DOJ) and Governmental findings letters,…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure weight monitoring was provided for 1 resident (R) (R12) of 2 sampled residents.R12 was not re-weighed for weight loss/gain greater than 5 pounds (lbs). R12's provider, Power of Attorney (POA), and the facility's Registered Dietician (RD) were not notified regarding R12's weight loss/gain greater than 5 lbs. In addition, R12's weight was not obtained with a consistent device.Findings include:The facility's Weight Monitoring policy, revised 12/21/22, indicates: Weight Assessment:.5. Team members will follow a consistent approach to weighing and using an appropriately calibrated and functioning scale. Since weight varies throughout the day, a consistent process and technique (e.g., weighing the resident wearing a similar type of clothing, at approximately the same time of day, using the same scale, either consistently wearing or not wearing orthotics or prostheses, and verifying scale accuracy) can help make weight comparison more reliable. 6.…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    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, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not provide the necessary respiratory care and services for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 1 sampled resident. R1's oxygen concentrator was not consistently set in accordance with a physician's order. In addition, R1's care plan did not indicate R1 had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a progressive inflammatory lung disease that obstructs airflow from the lungs making it difficult to breathe). Findings include: The facility's Oxygen Concentrator policy, dated 6/3/22, indicates: .1. Staff responsible for the use and care of oxygen concentrators receive training on oxygen safety and the functionality of the device. 2. Oxygen is administered under orders of the attending physician, except in the case of an emergency .4. Use of the Concentrator: a. Orders for the rate of flow and route of administration of oxygen (mask, nasal cannula etc.) .k. Keep turned off when set up for use in the resident's room, but 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-20 · tag F0712 — isolated
    Ensure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure physician visits were completed timely for 1 resident (R) (R6) of 3 sampled residents. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R6 was not seen by a physician at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission.Findings include:The facility's Physician Visits and Physician Delegation policy, revised 7/27/25, indicates: .2. The physician should: a. See resident within 30 days of initial admission to the facility. b. The resident must be seen at least once every 30 calendar days for the first 90 calendar days after admission .On 1/20/26, Surveyor reviewed R6's medical record. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including vascular dementia, hemiplegia, cerebral infarction, and diabetes. R6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/30/25, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 out of 15 which indicated R6 had severe cognitive impairment.Surveyor reviewed R6's physician visits after…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the appropriate care and treatment regarding dressing changes and lab work was provided for 2 residents (R) (R3 and R9) of 3 sampled residents.Staff did not complete R3's peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line dressing change as ordered. In addition, R3's weekly labs were not completed as ordered.Staff did not complete R9's PICC line dressing change as ordered. Findings include:The facility's Dressing Change for Vascular Access Devices policy, revised 10/2024, indicates: Purpose: To prevent local and systemic infection related to the intravenous (IV) catheter .A sterile dressing is maintained on all peripheral and central vascular access devices to protect the site, provide a microbial barrier, and to provide vascular access device securement .3. Central venous access device and peripheral midline dressings are changed every 7 days and immediately if the integrity of the dressing is compromised, if moisture,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 staff and resident interview and record review, the facility did not ensure adequate supervision was implemented for 1 resident (R) (R2) of 8 sampled residents.On 7/1/25, R8 reported to Registered Nurse (RN)-E that R2 rubbed R8's arm and made sexual statements to R8 including What size are your breasts? and Can I feel your breasts? The facility did not place R2 on supervision to prevent reoccurrence. On 7/13/25, RN-E witnessed R2 rubbing R1's arm. RN-E intervened and R1 indicated that R1 squeezed R2's breasts. R2 was placed on 1:1 supervision following the incident.Findings include:The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, dated 7/15/22, indicates the facility will implement policies and procedures to prevent and prohibit all types of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation that achieves .B. Identifying, correcting, and intervening in situations in which abuse .is more likely to occur with the deployment of trained and qualified, registered, licensed, 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-13 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not revise the comprehensive plan of care to reflect personal care needs for 1 resident (R) (R2) of 1 sampled resident. R2's care plan did not reflect specialized techniques of care that R2 required with activities of daily living. Findings include: The facility's Comprehensive Care Plan policy, revised 9/23/22, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident .5. The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised as appropriate by the interdisciplinary team after each Comprehensive and Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and as needed with change in condition . On 6/13/25 at 9:20 AM, Surveyor reviewed R2's medical record. R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including cerebral vascular accident with right-sided hemiplegia, dysphagia, aphasia, depression, cognitive communication deficit, and epilepsy. R2's MDS assessment, dated 3/24/25,…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-01 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure nail care was provided for 1 resident (R) (R21) of two sampled residents. R21's fingernails were not trimmed per R21's request. Findings include: From 3/30/25 to 4/1/25, Surveyor reviewed R21's medical record. R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of quadriplegia. R21's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/14/25, indicated R21 had intact cognition. R21's plan of care, dated 3/20/25, indicated R21 had an activity of daily living (ADL) self-care deficit and was dependent on staff to complete ADLs due to physical limitations secondary to transverse myelitis quadriplegia. R21's plan of care also indicated R21 was at risk for alteration in skin integrity related to impaired mobility and contained interventions for personal hygiene assist of one, bathing/showering assist of one, and to be extra careful when trimming R21's nails due to abnormal nails and build-up under the nails.…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-01 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 2 residents (R) (R7 and R16) of 6 sampled residents were monitored for adverse reactions to high-risk medications. R7 was prescribed furosemide (a diuretic medication) for edema (swelling). R7 was not monitored for adverse reactions to the high-risk medication. R16 was prescribed cefazolin (an antibiotic medication) for infection. R16 was not monitored for adverse reactions to the high-risk medication. Findings include: The facility's Medication Management policy, dated 1/2025, indicates: Each resident's drug regimen is reviewed to ensure it is free from unnecessary drugs. This includes any drug: .for excessive duration, without adequate monitoring .in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any combination of these reasons. Medication management is based on the care process and includes recognition or identification of the problem/need .management/treatment, monitoring, and revising…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-01 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication order for 1 resident (R) (R7) of 5 sampled residents was discontinued after 14 days. R7 was prescribed lorazepam (an anti-anxiety medication) for anxiety. R7's PRN lorazepam order was not discontinued after 14 days and did not contain a stop date. Findings include: The facility's Medication Management policy, dated 1/2025, indicates: Each resident's drug regimen is reviewed to ensure it is free from unnecessary drugs. This includes any drug: .for excessive duration, without adequate monitoring .in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any combination of these reasons. Medication management is based on the care process and includes recognition or identification of the problem/need .management/treatment, monitoring, and revising interventions .In order to optimize the therapeutic benefit of medication therapy and minimize or prevent…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-01 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolated
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    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, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was served in a manner that conserved palatability and temperature for 1 resident (R) (R21) of 14 sampled residents. The facility served R21's meals at an unappetizing temperature. Findings include: The 2022 Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code documents at 3-501.16: Bacterial growth and/or toxin production can occur if time/temperature control for safety food remains in the temperature danger zone of 5 degrees Celsius (C) to 57 degrees C (41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 135 degrees F) too long. From 3/30/25 to 4/1/25, Surveyor reviewed R21's medical record. R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of quadriplegia. R21's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/14/25, indicated R21 had intact cognition. A care plan, dated 3/20/25, indicated R21 was at risk for nutritional status change related to congestive heart failure and quadriplegia and was dependent 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the transmission of communicable disease and infection for 1 resident (R) (R138) of 14 sampled residents. R138 was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) which require staff to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during high-contact resident cares. On 3/31/25, staff provided care, transferred, and disconnected R138's tube feeding without donning the appropriate PPE. In addition, there was not an EBP sign posted on or near R138's door. Findings include: The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy, revised 8/8/24, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) .Enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure all medications were labeled appropriately for 2 Residents (R) (R138 and R8) of 5 residents observed during medication administration. R138 was administered furosemide 40 mg (milligrams). The medication card was not labeled correctly. R8 was administered metoprolol succinate ER (extended release) 50 mg. The medication card was not labeled correctly. Findings include: The facility's Medication Ordering and Receiving From Pharmacy Provider policy and procedure, dated 1/23, indicates: .Each prescription medication will be labeled to include specific directions for use .3. Improperly or inaccurately labeled medications are refused and returned to the dispensing pharmacy. 1. On 3/26/24 at 9:00 AM, Surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-F administer medication to R138. LPN-F retrieved a medication card for R138 from the medication cart and handed the card to Surveyor. The medication card label read furosemide 40 mg one tablet daily. On 3/26/24, Surveyor reviewed R138's current physician order…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-10 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
    Develop 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not implement their written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse for 1 (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-C) of 8 facility and contracted staff reviewed for caregiver background checks. The facility did not ensure a thorough and timely caregiver background check was completed for CNA-C. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, with a review date of 7/15/22, indicated: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property .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. Background checks,…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$37,992 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $29,165 — penalty dated 2026-01-20
  • $8,827 — penalty dated 2024-03-27

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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE — 59 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 1 of 52.7-1.7 vs chain
Health inspection 1 of 52.8-1.8 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.4+0.6 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 52.5+1.5 vs chain
The other 58 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
1 of 5Elroy Health ServicesElroy, WI 1 of 5Florence Health ServicesFlorence, WI 1 of 5Hopkins Restorative Care CenterHopkins, MN 1 of 5La Crescent Health ServicesLa Crescent, MN 1 of 5Minot Health And Rehab, LLCMinot, ND 1 of 5Plymouth Health ServicesPlymouth, WI 1 of 5Rochester Restorative Care CenterRochester, MN 1 of 5Sheboygan Progressive Health ServicesSheboygan, WI 1 of 5Williams Bay Health ServicesWilliams Bay, WI 1 of 5Wisconsin Rapids Health ServicesWisconsin Rapids, WI 2 of 5Birch Hill Health ServicesShawano, WI 2 of 5Colonial Health ServicesColby, WI 2 of 5Evergreen Health ServicesShawano, WI 2 of 5Green Bay Health ServicesGreen Bay, WI 2 of 5Heritage Health ServicesPort Washington, WI 2 of 5Lake Country Health ServicesOconomowoc, WI 2 of 5Lancaster Health ServicesLancaster, WI 2 of 5Maple Ridge Health ServicesMilwaukee, WI 2 of 5Menomonee Falls Health ServicesMenomonee Falls, WI 2 of 5Mineral Point Health ServicesMineral Point, WI 2 of 5Soldiers Grove Health ServicesSoldiers Grove, WI 2 of 5Stevens Point Health ServicesStevens Point, WI 2 of 5Sunrise Health ServicesMilwaukee, WI 2 of 5Three Oaks Health ServicesMarshfield, WI 2 of 5Tomahawk Health ServicesTomahawk, WI 2 of 5Whitewater Health ServicesSt Charles, MN 2 of 5Willowcrest Health ServicesSouth Milwaukee, WI 3 of 5Cedarburg Health ServicesCedarburg, WI 3 of 5Court Manor Health ServicesAshland, WI 3 of 5Hayward Health ServicesHayward, WI 3 of 5Homestead Health ServicesNew Holstein, WI 3 of 5Mercy Health ServicesMilwaukee, WI 3 of 5Morningside Health ServicesSheboygan, WI 3 of 5Oakwood Health ServicesAltoona, WI 3 of 5Randolph Health ServicesRandolph, WI 3 of 5Rib Lake Health ServicesRib Lake, WI 3 of 5River's Bend Health ServicesManitowoc, WI 3 of 5Riverview Health ServicesTomahawk, WI 3 of 5Sheboygan Health ServicesSheboygan, WI 3 of 5St Francis Health ServicesSaint Francis, WI

Showing 40 of 58; 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
NSHR OPERATIONS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 10/01/2019
ARROWHEAD 123 LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 10/01/2019
THE LANE MORRELL BOWEN TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 10/01/2019
MILLS, DAVIDIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST18%since 10/01/2019
CIBC BANK USAOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/31/2024
BAUMANN, TROYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2019
HOEHN, JEFFREYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2019
CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/06/2025
CONTINUUM THERAPY PARTNERS LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/06/2025
NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/06/2025
NSH REHAB LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2025
WIPFLI LLPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2025
BELONGIA, CHRISTINAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2019
GEE, DARRENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 11/30/2021
GREER, LAURENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 11/29/2023
PATZER, COLLEENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/14/2002
POPP, MARISSAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/17/2025
PURTELL, BRIANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2019
RAMNANAN, KESHNIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2023
NSH 1201 GARFIELD AVENUE LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2019

CMS files one row per role, so the 40 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

10 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.

$4.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-1.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$201K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 28%Medicare 3%Other / private 68%

This home reported $201K 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

$341per resident / day
operating cost
$10,370per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$337per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Wisconsin
$10,646/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,319/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,540/mo
Assisted living

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 525579. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-21, 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.

What to do next