Complete Care at Manitowoc LLC
2021 S Alverno Rd, Manitowoc, WI 54220 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 150 certified beds · (920) 683-4100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2023
- 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
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $76,944 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-27)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 11.3% | 16.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.6% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 19.2% | 5.7% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.4% | 18.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.9% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.8% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.4% | 15.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.2% | 82.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.8% | 23.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.7% | 15.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.30 | 1.66 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.97 | 2.29 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
51.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 137 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 48 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 51.2%CMS range 42.6–59.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.1%CMS range 8.9–16.0 | 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 | 62.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 56.2% | 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 | 72.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.2–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 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 150 beds and averages 104.5 residents a day — about 70% occupied, or roughly 46 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.32 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.09 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.09 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-09-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and resident interview and record review, the facility failed to protect residents' rights to be free from sexual abuse when they determined 2 cognitively impaired Residents (R) (R1 and R5) of 5 sampled residents engaged in a sexual act despite interviews that indicated R1 and R5 did not want a sexual relationship with each other. The facility was aware R1 had a history of exposing R1's genitals when R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Staff was also aware that approximately two months prior to 9/5/23 (date unknown), staff reported R1 and R5 were observed in R1's room with R1's brief and pants down, and R1's genitals exposed. The facility provided an undated and incomplete investigation that indicated R5 was helping R1 with R1's pants. There was no assessment of either resident's ability to consent to a sexual relationship. On 9/5/23, a staff member was looking for R1 and was told R1 was in R5's room. When staff knocked on the closed door and entered the room, R5's brief and pants were down…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-01 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure daily weights were consistently completed or a physician was notified of a significant weight gain for 1 resident (R) (R67) of 6 sampled residents.R67 had a diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF). R67 had an order for daily weights and to notify the physician of a weight gain of 3 pounds (lbs) or more in one day. R67 had a significant weight gain of 7.4 lbs (5.96%) from 9/19/25 to 9/20/25. Staff did not consistently complete daily weights or notify the physician of R67's weight gain.Findings include:The facility's Weight Monitoring policy, revised 5/28/25, indicates: Based on the resident's comprehensive assessment, the facility will ensure all residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or resident preferences indicate otherwise .6. Weight analysis: The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-01 · 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, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not provide services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 resident (R) (R42) of 1 sampled resident with a feeding tube.R42 received medication, nutritional supplements, and hydration via gastrostomy (G)-tube. During an observation of medication administration, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-D did not flush R42's G-tube with 10 cubic centimeters (ccs) of water between medications as ordered.Findings include:The facility's Medication Administration via Enteral Tube policy, dated 2025, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to ensure the safe and effective administration of medication via enteral feeding tube by using best practice guidelines .Each medication will be administered separately .Flush enteral feeding tube with at least 15 milliliters (ml) of water prior to administering medication unless otherwise ordered by the provider .Administer using a clean syringe .Flush tube again with at least 15 ml of water unless…
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 before2025-07-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 a medical record contained complete and accurate information for 1 resident (R) (R5) of 10 sampled residents.On 6/28/25, Registered Nurse (RN)-C assessed R5 for stroke symptoms after receiving a concern from R5's friend. RN-C did not document the neurological assessment in R5's medical record after it was completed.Findings include:The facility's Documentation in the Medical Record policy, revised 10/2024, indicates: Each resident's medical record shall contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident and include enough information to provide a picture of the resident's progress .Licensed staff and Interdisciplinary Team members shall document all assessments, observations, and services provided in the resident's medical record .Documentation shall be completed at the time of service.On 7/7/25, Surveyor reviewed R5's medical record. R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including stroke,…
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 · D2024-11-26 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not provide appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs) for 2 residents (R) (R13 and R14) of 10 sampled residents. On 11/26/24, R13 and R14's catheter drainage bags were observed on the floor. Findings include: The facility's Catheter Care Policy, dated 6/2024, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents with indwelling catheters receive appropriate catheter care and maintain their dignity and privacy when indwelling catheters are in use .2. Privacy bags will be available and catheter drainage bags will be covered at all times while in use .(The policy does not address positioning/placement of tubing or drainage bags.) The facility's Urinary Catheter Relias training indicates: .Urinary catheters often lead to infections and complications .as many as 50-70% of urinary catheter-related infections can be prevented. You are in a position to prevent infections and complications caused by…
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 · D2024-11-26 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 follow a prescribed individualized diet to ensure nutritional needs were met for 1 resident (R) (R11) of 8 sampled residents. During the 11/26/24 lunch meal, staff did not follow R11's consistent carbohydrate (CCHO) diet order. Findings include: The facility's Menu Parameters Standardized Diets policy, revised 3/24/20, indicates: Menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with the recommended dietary allowances of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences .The intent of this regulation is to assure that the meals served meet the nutritional needs of the resident in accordance with the recommended daily allowances (RDAs) of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. This regulation also assures that there is a prepared menu by which nutritionally adequate meals have been planned for the resident and followed. During the lunch meal on 11/26/24, Surveyor noted R11 received a…
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 · D2024-11-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, 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) (R8) of 14 residents observed during the provision of care. In addition, dietary staff touched items in the kitchen without completing hand hygiene. R8 was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) which required staff to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during high-contact care. On 11/26/24, staff transferred R8 without wearing PPE. On 11/26/24, Dietary Aide (DA)-L lifted a garbage can lid with gloved hands. DA-L then wrapped food and touched items in the kitchen without completing hand hygiene. Findings include: The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions Policy and Procedure, revised 6/26/24, indicates: The implementation of EBP will reduce transmission of resistant organisms by employing targeted gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities .Nursing home residents with wounds and indwelling medical devices are especially at risk of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a safe and sanitary manner. This practice had the potential to affect 60 of 105 residents residing in the facility. On 7/23/24 and 7/24/24, beverages were not iced during meal service. The temperature of the milk at the end of meal service on 7/23/24 was 59 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Resident food was not heated in a microwave according to regulations or the facility's policy. Findings include: On 7/22/24 at 8:32 AM, Surveyor began an initial kitchen tour with Assistant Dietary Manager (ADM)-F who stated the facility follows the Wisconsin Food Code. Beverage Temperatures: The Wisconsin State Food Code documents at 3-501.16 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Hot and Cold Holding: (A) .Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food shall be maintained: (2) At 41 degrees F or less. The facility's Record of Food Temperatures policy, dated January 2024, indicates: .4. Potentially hazardous cold food temperatures will be kept at or below 41 degrees F. On 7/23/24 at 11:22 AM, 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 · D2024-07-24 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not provide the necessary care and services to prevent a pressure injury from developing and/or promote healing for 1 resident (R) (R161) of 5 sampled residents. R161 had a history of a stage 2 pressure injury on the sacral/coccyx area. R161's skin integrity care plan contained an intervention for a pressure reducing cushion while up in chair. During an observation on 7/24/24, R161 did not have a cushion in R161's recliner. Findings include: The facility's Pressure Injury Risk Assessment Policy, dated 6/23, indicates: It is our policy to perform a pressure injury risk assessment as part of our systemic approach to pressure injury prevention. A risk assessment does not always identify who will develop a pressure injury, but will determine which residents are more likely to develop a pressure injury .3. Each item on the standardized risk assessment will be considered, individually, to ensure risk factors are addressed appropriately,…
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 · D2024-07-24 · 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, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure it was free of a medication error rate of 5% or greater. During medication administration observations, 2 errors occurred during 25 opportunities which resulted in an 8% medication error rate that affected 1 resident (R) (R18) of 12 residents observed during medication pass. On 7/22/24, R18 was administered an incorrect dose of two eye drops. Findings include: The facility's Medication Administration policy, with a revision date of June 2024, indicates: .10. Ensure that the six rights of medication administration are followed: a. Right resident, b. Right drug, c. Right dosage, d. Right route, e. Right time, f. Right documentation. Compare medication source with Medication Administration Record (MAR) to verify resident name, medication name, form, dose, route, and time . On 7/22/24, Surveyor reviewed R18's medical record. R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified macular degeneration and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 provider interview, and record review, the facility did not promptly notify the provider and/or Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC) of a change in condition for 2 Residents (R) (R1 and R5) of 2 residents. R1's provider was not notified timely of an increase in R1's sexual behaviors and a sexual encounter between R1 and R5. R5's POAHC and provider were not notified timely of a sexual encounter between R5 and R1. Findings include: The facility's Notification of Changes policy, dated 6/2023, indicates: The facility must inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician and/or notify the resident's family member or legal representative when there is a change requiring such notification. 1. On 9/14/23 and 9/18/23, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia. R1's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/23/23, contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15 which indicated R1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-27 · 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 staff 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 1105B of the Act for 2 Residents (R) (R1 and R5) of 5 residents reviewed. R1 and R5 had activated [NAME] of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC) due to impaired cognition. On 9/5/23, staff observed R1 touching R5's genitals in R5's room behind a closed door. The allegation of sexual abuse was not reported to the SA or law enforcement. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, revised 9/2023, indicates: The facility will designate an Abuse Prevention Coordinator who is responsible for reporting allegations of suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the State Survey Agency and other officials in accordance with State law, and reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, State Agency, Adult Protective Services and to all other required agencies (e.g., law enforcement…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-27 · 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 resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure an allegation of sexual abuse was thoroughly investigated for 2 Residents (R) (R1 and R5) of 5 residents reviewed. The facility did not complete a thorough investigation regarding an allegation of sexual abuse after R1 and R5 were observed in a sexual encounter behind a closed door in R5's room. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, revised 9/19/23, indicates: V. Investigation of Alleged Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation A. An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur. B. Written procedures for investigations include 1. Identifying staff responsible for the investigation; 2. Exercising caution in handling evidence that could be used in a criminal investigation (e.g., not tampering or destroying evidence); 3. Investigating different types of alleged violations; 4. Identifying and interviewing 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-27 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 the medical record contained accurate and complete documentation for 2 Residents (R) (R1 and R5) of 5 sampled residents. The medical records for R1 and R5 did not contain complete and accurate documentation related to sexual interactions between R1 and R5. Findings include: The facility's Documentation in Medical Record policy, dated 6/2023, indicates: Licensed staff and interdisciplinary team members shall document all assessments, observations, and services provided in the resident's medical record in accordance with state laws and facility policy. On 9/14/23 and 9/18/23, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia. R1's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/23/23, contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15 which indicated R1 was severely cognitively impaired. R1 required staff assistance with activities of daily living…
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
$76,944 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $76,944 — penalty dated 2023-09-27
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 COMPLETE CARE — 85 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 84 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 84; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EEF CAPITAL LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 40% | since 06/01/2018 |
| SNJ WISCONSIN LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 60% | since 06/01/2018 |
| SCHLAFF, BENNY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 20% | since 06/01/2018 |
| SCHLAFF, NACHUM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 20% | since 06/01/2018 |
| SILVERBERG, NISANEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 11% | since 06/01/2018 |
| HELLMAN, YOSEF | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| STEIN, SHALOM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| CULP, KAREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/03/2020 |
| GIRIYAPPA, PRADEEP | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2025 |
| GRINDHEIM, CYNTHIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2019 |
| MANITOWOC PROPERTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2025 |
| CHRISTEL, BRIANNA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/25/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $695K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in WI
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Wisconsin Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 525441. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-01, 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.