St Marys Home for the Aged
1635 S 21st Street, Manitowoc, WI 54220 · Non profit - Church related · 84 certified beds · (920) 684-7171 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
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) | 5 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 4 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 | 24.1% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.1% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.0% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 9.4% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 5.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.8% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.8% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.6% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.6% | 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 | 23.2% | 24.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.2% | 15.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.1% | 82.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 36.9% | 23.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.5% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.00 | 1.66 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.85 | 2.29 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
60.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 125 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.6% 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 87 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 60.1%CMS range 53.9–66.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 7.5–15.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 58.6% | 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 | 55.2% | 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 | 55.2% | 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 | 93.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.5%CMS range 3.1–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.79 | 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 84 beds and averages 44.3 residents a day — about 53% occupied, or roughly 40 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 5.09 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.13 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.51 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.60 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.28 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.29 to 0.72 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-03 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure reconciliation of discharge medications for 1 resident (R) (R51) of 2 sampled residents. R51 was private pay status and discharged to an Assisted Living (AL) facility on 8/25/25. Medications were not sent with R51 at the time of discharge. The pharmacy was not able to fill all of R51's medications because some were filled by the nursing facility less than 30 days prior. The facility delivered some medications to R51's AL facility on 8/26/25 but did not have a record of which medications were delivered. R51 missed three doses of a Parkinson's medication.Findings include:The facility's Discharge Planning policy, revised 3/31/17, indicates: .5. Implement Discharge Plan: .f. Communicate discharge plan to appropriate members of the care team.From 12/1/25 to 12/3/25, Surveyor reviewed R51's medical record. R51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] following a hospital stay from 7/20/25 to 8/5/25 due to respiratory failure secondary to pericardial…
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 · D2025-12-03 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 representative interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a new diagnosis of schizophrenia met clinical criteria for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 1 sampled resident.R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 6/6/25, R1 received a new diagnosis of schizophrenia. The facility did not have evidence that R1's diagnosis met the diagnostic criteria in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Findings includeAccording to The American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (a resource used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders), to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the patient must have experienced two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1 month period (or less if successfully treated). At least one of these must be delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized speech: delusions;…
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 · D2025-12-03 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and resident representative interview and record review, the facility did not provide restorative therapy to increase and/or prevent decrease in range of motion (ROM) or activities of daily living (ADLs) for 1 resident (R) (R51) of 1 sampled resident.Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC)-K received notice on 8/19/25 that R51's Medicare benefits were ending. Therapy was not provided while POAHC-K pursued an appeal.Findings include:The Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form indicates: .You have the right to appeal this decision to end Medicare coverage for your services. This means you'll get an independent medical review right away. Your services will continue during the appeal. From 12/1/25 to 12/3/25, Surveyor reviewed R51's medical record. R51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] following a hospital stay from 7/20/25 to 8/5/25 where R51 had respiratory failure thought to be secondary to pericardial effusion and possible pneumonia. R51 was intubated and received a pacemaker during 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 · D2025-12-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 2 residents (R) (R23 and R12) of 3 sampled residents.R23 had a history of falls. R23's care plan contained an intervention for a call light within reach with prompt response to requests. During multiple observations, R23 did not have a call light within reach.R12 had a history of falls. R12's care plan contained an intervention to have a walker in front of R12 when in bed and in R12's recliner. During multiple observations, R12 did not have a walker in front of R12 when in bed or the recliner.Findings include: The facility's Fall Prevention Program policy, revised 1/8/19, indicates: .1. Ensure the environment is free from accident hazards over which we have control and that we provide supervision and assistive devices to each resident to prevent avoidable accidents in accordance with state and federal regulations. 1. On 12/1/25, Surveyor reviewed…
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 · D2025-12-03 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 necessary respiratory care and services for 2 residents (R) (R1 and R5) of 2 sampled residents.R1 had diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). R1 had an order for a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machine with oxygen provided by a concentrator and connected to the machine via tubing. Staff did not clean R1's BiPAP machine per manufacturer's instructions. In addition, two open one-gallon jugs of distilled water for use with R1's BiPAP machine were expired. R5 had a diagnosis of OSA and an order for a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine. Staff did not clean R5's CPAP machine per manufacturer's instructions.Findings include:The facility's Using a CPAP machine policy, dated [DATE], indicates: CPAP is used to treat patients with obstructive sleep apnea or to help decrease a patient's work of breathing while increasing oxygen saturation in 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 · D2025-12-03 · 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
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 development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 3 residents (R) (R42, R11, and R1) of 16 sampled residents. R42 was on droplet precautions. Staff provided care for R42 without wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).R11 was on contact precautions. Staff provided care for R11 without wearing PPE. R1 had a diagnosis of pneumonia. R1 was not listed on the facility's infection control resident line list for surveillance. Findings include:The facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program policy, revised 1/1/25, indicates: .4. The Infection Prevention Committee (ICP) will make recommendations about how to best maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents and staff and how to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection .11. All residents on transmission precautions (contact, droplet,…
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 · D2025-04-30 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 Significant Change in Status (SCIS) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed timely for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 3 sampled residents. R1 met the criteria for a Significant Change in Status MDS assessment on 3/15/25. A SCIS assessment was not completed. Findings include: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual 3.0 states a Significant Change in Status MDS must be completed when the Interdisciplinary Team determines a resident meets the significant change guidelines for either a major decline or a major improvement. A significant change is a major decline or improvement in a resident's status that: 1. Will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions; the decline is not considered self-limiting; 2. Impacts more than one area of the resident's health status; and 3. Requires interdisciplinary review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-14 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure vaccinations were reviewed, offered, or administered for 1 Resident (R) (R13) of 5 sampled residents. The facility did not offer R13 the PCV20® vaccine. Findings include: Abbreviations (www.cdc.gov): PCV13: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevnar13®) PCV15: 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Vaxneuvance®) PCV20: 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevnar 20®) PPSV23: 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax23®) The most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for pneumococcal vaccinations indicate: For adults 65 years or older who have only received PPSV23, the CDC recommends: Give 1 dose of PCV15 or PCV20. The PCV15 or PCV20 dose should be administered at least 1 year after the most recent PPSV23 vaccination. Regardless of if PCV15 or PCV20 is given, an additional dose of PPSV23 is not recommended since they already received it. For those who have received PCV13 and 1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-06-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a safe and sanitary manner. This practice had the potential to affect all 30 residents residing in the facility. Cold food items were served outside the temperature safe zone and dessert was not covered appropriately during meal service. Hand hygiene was not completed appropriately during lunch service on 6/20/22. Findings include: On 6/21/23 at 1:20 PM, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM)-E stated the facility follows the Wisconsin Food Code. 1. Cold Temperature Foods/Uncovered Items The Wisconsin Food Code at 3-501.16 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Hot and Cold Holding states: .Time/Temperature control for safety food shall be maintained: .(2) At 5 degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit) or less. The Wisconsin Food Code also states at 3-307.11 Miscellaneous Sources of Contamination: Food shall be protected from contamination that may result from a factor or source not specified under Subparts 3-301 and 3-306. The facility's Food Temperature Verification…
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 · D2023-06-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure comprehensive care plans were developed for 3 Residents (R) (R6, R12, and R22) of 13 sampled residents. The facility did not develop a hospice care plans for R6 and R12 when R6 and R12 started hospice services. The facility did not develop a care plan which included the intervention of a splint to R22's left arm. Findings include: 1. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included encounter for palliative care, Alzheimer's disease with late onset, adult failure to thrive, and vascular dementia. Between 6/20/23 and 6/22/23, Surveyor reviewed R6's medical record and noted R6 started hospice services on 2/27/23. R6's medical record did not contain a plan of care for hospice services. On 6/22/23 at 9:38 AM, Nurse Manager (NM)-C confirmed R6 did not have a care plan related to hospice services and stated one was just added. Surveyor again reviewed R6's medical record and noted a hospice care plan was added on 6/22/23. 2.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-22 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the accurate administration of medication for 1 Resident (R) (R4) of 13 sampled residents. R4 did not receive scheduled pain medication timely when the facility ran out of the medication and did not have a current prescription. Findings include: R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteoarthritis, presence of cardiac pacemaker, generalized anxiety disorder, radiculopathy lumbar region (inflammation of a nerve root in the lower back which causes symptoms of pain or irritation in the back and down the legs .commonly referred to as sciatica). R4's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R4 was not cognitively impaired. R4 had a care plan related to pain. On [DATE] at 9:55 AM, Surveyor interviewed R4 who stated R4 did not get R4's scheduled hydrocodone (a narcotic medication used to treat moderate…
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 · D2023-06-22 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure monitoring of a high-risk medication for 1 Resident (R) (R15) of 5 residents reviewed. R15's medical record did not contain monitoring for the side effects of Lasix (a diuretic medication). Findings include: According to the Davis's Drug Guide for Nurses 18th edition copyright 2023 adverse reactions/side effects of diuretic medication include thirst, dry mouth, lethargy, weakness, hypotension, and oliguria (abnormally small amouts of urine) .Monitor daily weight, intake and output ratios, amount and location of edema, lung sounds, skin turgor, and mucous membranes .Monitor blood pressure and pulse before and during administration. On 6/22/23, Surveyor reviewed R15's medical record and noted R15 had a physician's order for Lasix 20 mg (milligrams) (a loop diuretic (water pill) that prevents the body from absorbing too much salt) daily for a diagnosis of congenital heart failure. Surveyor noted R15's medical record did not include monitoring for side effects or adverse reactions to Lasix. On 6/22/23 at 9:16 AM,…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to FELICIAN SERVICES — 3 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 2 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FELICIAN SERVICES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | 100% | since 06/30/2012 |
| SIDHU, SARFRAZ | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BRUCKSCHEN, MEGAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/14/2022 |
| CORBEIL, LINDSEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/13/2021 |
| DENOR, JEREMY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/16/2021 |
| HILLMER, MICHAEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/06/2017 |
| JACOBI, ROSELLE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/09/2023 |
| MILLER, MICHAEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/13/2018 |
| OTTEN, SHANNON | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/06/2023 |
| SCHUBERT, LUKE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/01/2023 |
| SPIES, BARBARA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/08/2023 |
| THOMPSON, RENEE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/20/2023 |
| WECH, DARCY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2016 |
| DONLON, MARCIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2021 |
| ETHERIDGE, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2016 |
| GOETZ, CAMERON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2019 |
| MAURER, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2013 |
| SAUER, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2012 |
| SOLTYS, FRANK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/02/2013 |
| SWETLIK, DENNIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| VEESER, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 34 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 $307K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 525609. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-03, 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.