Neighbors - East Neighborhood (the)
658 Howison Circle, Menomonie, WI 54751 · Government - County · 46 certified beds · (715) 232-2661 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 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 | 27.0% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 2.7% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.3% | 5.7% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.0% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.6% | 16.9% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.7% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 5.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.6% | 24.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.7% | 15.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.30 | 1.66 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.91 | 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.
36.3% 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 31 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.06 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | 36.3%CMS range 25.5–52.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 5.4–14.6 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 46 beds and averages 44.7 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 1 bed typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.09 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.89 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.97 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.15 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.78 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-02-13 · 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 record review and interview, the facility did not provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (R1) reviewed for supervision with showers and monitoring of water temperatures. R1 had a known history of taking long showers independently, when assessed to require maximum assistance with showers. The facility did not address this behavior in a plan of care. The facility was aware of fluctuating water temperatures on R1's household. The water temperatures were not monitored. R1 entered the shower independently. without assistance, on 1/30/24 and suffered actual harm sustaining second and third degree burns. Findings include: Facility Water Management Plan approval date of 07/17/23 and effective date of 07/17/23. 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER SYSTEM: C. Water heaters are located in the core of each building and in each of the individual households. Central building has 2 water heaters in the core, one supplying the core and the other supplying the main kitchen. Water is heated at each…
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 · F2026-01-07 · tag F0887 — widespreadEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not maintain documentation of screening, education, offering, and current Coronavirus 19 (COVID) vaccination status to staff. This has the potential to affect all 45 residents.The facility did not provide education to all staff for the COVID 19 vaccine.Facility did not develop and implement policies and procedures regarding the COVID 19 vaccine immunization. Findings include:Surveyor was provided separate policies titled Antibiotic Stewardship, Infection Surveillance, Influenza Prevention, Influenza Vaccination, Pneumococcal Vaccine, and the Pandemic Plan. There was no policy for COVID 19 vaccination or mention of COVID 19 vaccination of residents or staff in any of the policies. Code of Federal Regulations S483.80(d)(3) COVID-19 immunizations states in part: The LTC (long term care) facility must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure all the following(ii) Before offering COVID-19 vaccine, all staff members are provided with education regarding the benefits and risks and potential side effects associated with…
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 · Ecited before2026-01-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 and resident 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.Housekeeping did not use any type of clothing barrier (e.g., apron) when sorting and washing dirty laundry. This practice had the potential to affect all 16 residents residing in the same household.Improper hand hygiene was observed during catheter care and personal care for R5 and R29.The facility policy, titled Laundry Duties, last reviewed 2/5/25, states in part: Policy: The Neighbors of [NAME] County provides laundry services to its residents. This includes both personal clothing and facility linens. Purpose: The purpose of the Laundry is to collect, launder, and return linens and clothing to maintain adequate supplies of clean, sanitary linens for Health Center use. Procedure: Resident Laundry is completed on bath day or as needed. AM/PM staff and homemakers should do 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 · D2026-01-07 · 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure residents/representatives received notice of bed-hold policy indicating specific reason for transfer or discharge, received notice before transfer or discharge indicating reserve payment, and/or did not send a copy of the discharge notice to the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman Notification for 2 of 3 residents (R8 and R16).-Facility did not provide a transfer notice form for R16's hospitalizations on 07/09/25, 07/19/25, and 07/23/25.-Facility did not provide specific reason for transfer for R8's hospitalization on 12/06/25.-Facility did not have notification of the daily bed rate on the bed hold policy forms for R8's hospitalization on 12/06/25 or R16's hospitalizations on 07/09/25, 07/19/25, and 07/23/25.-Facility did not notify Ombudsman of R16's hospitalization on 07/19/25.The facility policy titled, Bed Hold Policy for Medical Assistance Residents, last reviewed on 10/25/25 states in part, Beds shall be held for fifteen (15) days for the residents receiving Medical Assistance (MA) while on a hospital…
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 · D2026-01-07 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolatedProvide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure follow up dental care for 1 (R7) of 1 resident reviewed for dental care. R7 complained of tooth pain and requested to see a dentist to have remaining teeth pulled due to broken teeth causing pain during eating. The facility did not document the follow up or extenuating circumstances that led to the delay.Evidenced by: R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R7's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/11/25, indicates R7's cognition is intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Surveyor reviewed R7's dental progress notes, physician orders, and an email chain pertaining to dental needs: On 07/18/23, progress note states, Specialty care referral form completed to VA for [R7]. [R7] asking to have the rest of his teeth pulled. [R7] doesn't want to work toward dentures.On 08/08/23, a physician order for R7 requesting a dental appointment. On 10/18/23, date 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 · D2025-10-20 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure an allegation of sexual abuse was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 residents (R) reviewed. (R1)On 10/01/25, R1 alleged was sexually assaulted by a man. The facility nursing staff did not complete a full body skin assessment to thoroughly investigate the allegation.Facility's policy titled Reporting & Investigating Resident Rights Violations with revised date of 12/15/24, read in part: Assess the Effect on the Resident: Nursing supervisor immediately completes a body assessment and documents findings.R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R1's current diagnoses include dementia with anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder, dementia with mood disturbance, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and restless legs syndrome.Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] a quarterly assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3/15, indicating severe impaired cognition. R1 has fluctuating behaviors of delirium with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-09-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not establish an Infection Control Program under which it investigates, controls, and prevents infections in the facility, or a system for recording incidents identified under the facility's Infection Control Program, including corrective action in a timely manner, for both residents and staff. This has the potential to affect all 43 residents in the facility. The facility did not have an adequate surveillance and infection control program in place for tracking and monitoring infection and communicable disease for staff and residents. Staff did not sanitize lift for R11 after resident use. Staff did not sanitize hands during dressing change for R24. Enhanced Barrier Precautions were not put in place for R24, R18 and R26. This is evidenced by: Example 1 Facility's policy titled Infection Surveillance version 2.2, documented, in part: 1. The purpose of the surveillance of infections is to identify both individual cases and trends of epidemiologically significant organisms and Healthcare-Associated infections, to guide…
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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and record review, the facility did not ensure residents (R) were treated with dignity and respect and cared for in a manner to enhance their quality of life. Facility staff used clothing protectors and edge of spoon to wipe resident's face and stood over R32 and R6 while assisting them to eat. Findings: Example 1 R32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of Alzheimer's and dementia. Quarterly minimum data set assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R32 required a mechanically altered diet and is dependent on others for meal assist. On 09/24/24 at 11:44 AM, Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) F standing over R32 and using the spoon to clean food from around R32's mouth and then used R32's clothing protector to clean mouth instead of napkin. This observation occurred multiple times during the lunch observation of CNA F with R32. Example 2 R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Lewy Body dementia and memory deficit following cerebral…
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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility did not accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 1 residents (R) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) screen (R37). R37's MDS assessment is coded in error stating that a PASARR level 2 screen had not been completed when it was. This is evidenced by: R37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia, dementia and anxiety. Review of R37's medical record found a PASARR level 2 screen was completed, dated 05/06/24. R37's admission MDS assessment, dated 05/14/24, and significant change MDS assessment, dated 07/26/24, indicated for question A1500 that no PASARR level 2 had been completed. On 09/26/24 at 11:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Social Worker (SW) C, who completed the MDS Section A1500 on R37's admission and significant change MDS. Surveyor asked about the error in MDS coding stating the PASARR level 2 was not completed, when Surveyor observed that it was completed. SW C stated, It…
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 · D2024-09-26 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 1 resident (R) R3, reviewed for respiratory care was provided care consistent with professional standards of practice. R3 requires continuous oxygen and has a physician's order to change oxygen tubing every 5 days. This was not changed as ordered. This is evidenced by: Facility Policy entitled OXYGEN ADMINISTRATION last revised 03/01/24 states in part 2. Oxygen tubing, masks, etc. c. Are to be changed every 5 days and as needed per the E-MAR/TAR. R3 was admitted to the facility in 2023 and has diagnoses that include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and atherosclerotic heart disease. R3 utilizes continuous oxygen. On 09/24/24 at 9:14 AM, Surveyor observed R3's oxygen tubing connected to the concentrator in his bedroom. The oxygen tubing is dated 9/1. Surveyor also observed R3's portable oxygen tank on his wheelchair; the tubing connected to the portable oxygen was not dated. R3's physician orders, dated 1/29/24, state in part Oxygen: Change oxygen tubing every 5 days. On 09/25/24 at 10:53…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-08-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility did not implement appropriate infection prevention and control practices to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Staff observed with open sores assisting residents with meals and prepping silverware. Staff observed washing hands and turning off the faucet with clean hands. No hand hygiene was offered for residents before meals on 2 of the 3 households. This affected 30 of 46 residents (R33, R28, R20, R147, R44, R7, R3, R9, R19, R10, R21, R37, R31, R14, R1, R12, R43, R27, R25, R14, R25, R36, R8, R6, R41, R16, R24, R197, R30, and R26). Staff touching straws with bare hands. This affected 13 residents (R33, R28, R20, R147, R44, R7, R3, R9, R19, R10, R21, R37, R31). No hand hygiene with glove change during medication pass for R97. Findings include: Example 1 On 08/30/23, Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) G wrapping silverware in the Eastbrook dining room. Surveyor also noted CNA G to have 2 open red areas on their top left forearm. One area was about the size of 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 · E2023-08-30 · 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, staff interview and record review, the facility did not follow proper food handling practice. This practice had the potential to affect 16 of 46 residents (R14, R25, R45, R36, R12, R8, R6, R27, R41, R16, R1, R24, R197, R28, R30, R26) residing in the facility. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) E did not wear a hairnet while serving breakfast. Findings include: The FDA Food Code 2022 document 2-402.11 Food employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that cover body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food. On 08/30/23 at 7:20 AM, Surveyor observed CNA E serving breakfast to residents in the kitchenette. Surveyor asked CNA E if you are supposed to wear a hairnet when you are serving breakfast from this kitchenette. CNA E replied, Oh yeah, and walked around the counter, opened a drawer, pulled out a hairnet and put it on. On 08/30/23 at 9:30 AM, Surveyor interviewed Culinary Mentor (CM) F regarding the use of hairnets in the kitchenette. CM F replied,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COUNTY OF DUNN | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2013 |
| MCCULLOUGH, KELLY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| DUNBAR, DANIEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| MEYER, CARMEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| PHILLIPS, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.
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 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 525713. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-07, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.