St Joseph Residence
107 E Beckert Rd, New London, WI 54961 · Non profit - Church related · 50 certified beds · (920) 982-5354 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)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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 | 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 held steady at 5 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 | 14.0% | 16.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.8% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.1% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.8% | 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 | 2.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.3% | 18.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.1% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.0% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 35.1% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.1% | 15.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.5% | 82.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.9% | 23.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.1% | 15.5% | 12.0% | 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.
58.3% 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 60 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.7% 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 26 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 58.3%CMS range 50.3–67.3 | 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 | 9.3%CMS range 5.6–14.6 | 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 | 57.7% | 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 | 30.8% | 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 | 34.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 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 | 3.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.0–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.68 | 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 50 beds and averages 42.3 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 6.03 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.12 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 5.40 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.28 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.04 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-10-01 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the transmission of communicable disease and infection for 4 residents (R) (R57, R18, R40, and R3) of 16 sampled residents.Certified Nursing Assistant in Training (CNAT)-D entered the dining room and placed a ice pack from R57's room on R57's knee. R57 was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). Without completing hand hygiene, CNAT-D then passed lunch trays and put clothing protectors on R18, R40, and R57.R18 was on EBP. CNA-E did not don a gown or gloves prior to transferring R18 from recliner to wheelchair.R3 was on EBP. CNA-E emptied R3's catheter bag and removed personal protective equipment (PPE). CNA-E then removed garbage from a can, opened the door, and exited the room without completing hand hygiene. Findings include: The facility's Handwashing - Hand Hygiene policy, dated 5/1/24, indicates: .1. All personnel are trained and regularly in-serviced on the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-01 · tag 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 ensure appropriate respiratory care and services were provided for 2 residents (R) (R18 and R28) of 2 sampled residents. R18 had a continuous positive airway ressure (CPAP) machine. R18 did not have an order to use the CPAP machine or orders to clean the face mask or tubing. R28 used a nebulizer machine. R28's nebulizer tubing was not changed according to the facility's policy. In addition, R28's medical record did not contain orders to change the nebulizer tubing or clean the face mask and other parts of the nebulizer. Findings include: The facility's CPAP/BiPAP (bilevel positive airway pressure) policy, dated 12/1/24, indicates to set the CPAP mode as prescribed, connect supplemental oxygen to the flow rate as prescribed, monitor oxygen saturation of the resident, and clean masks, nasal pillows, and tubing daily. The facility's Administering Medications Through a Small Volume (Handheld) Nebulizer document, dated 1/1/25,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-01 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the coordination of Hospice services for 1 resident (R) (R3) of 1 sampled resident.R3 received Hospice services. R3's medical record did not contain a current Hospice care plan and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) visit notes were not accessible. In addition, the facility did not coordinate or document bed baths and offer range of motion (ROM) exercises per R3's request.Findings include:The facility's contract with Hospice Company (HC)-J, dated 5/1/21, indicates: Services to be provided by Hospice: .2. Hospice will develop .a plan of care for the management and palliation of the resident's terminal illness .The plan of care will be updated as often as the patient's condition requires, but no less frequently than every 15 days. Part III: Services to be provided by Facility: .2. Facility will provide room and board services to Hospice patients who are residents of the facility, including but not limited to .personal care, and such other…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150B of the Act for 2 residents (R) (R1 and R2) of 8 sampled residents.On 6/27/25, R1 and R2 were struck by Family Member (FM)-C) in the dining room. FM-C aggressively grabbed at R1, pulled R1 in, and hit R1 in the mid-section with a closed fist. FM-C also slapped R2 on the right hand, grabbed R2's left hand, and pulled R2's wheelchair toward FM-C. The facility did not notify local law enforcement of the abuse.Findings include:The facility's Abuse Prevention and Response policy, revised 1/1/25, indicates: 1. Upon receipt of an allegation or report of an incident, the licensed staff and/or Social Services will .1.3 Contact the police department if there is a suspected crime against a resident. (The facility's policy did not include examples of crimes that should be reported, including but not limited to assault and battery, and did not indicate the facility consulted with local…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-07 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to the State Agency (SA) in a timely manner for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 1 sampled resident. On 10/15/24, R1 reported an allegation of abuse that involved a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The facility did not submit an initial or five-day report to the SA in a timely manner. Findings include: The facility's Abuse Prevention and Response policy, with a review date of 9/23/23, indicates: Any person who becomes aware of alleged abuse, neglect or mistreatment .shall immediately report to the Executive Director .The Executive Director is responsible for receiving allegations of mistreatment, abuse, concerns, and complaints and ensuring the required investigation, reporting and resolution is completed according to State and Federal requirements .External Reporting: .If the suspected allegation does not appear to have caused serious bodily injury to the resident, or there is not a reason to suspect a crime has…
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 before2024-08-07 · 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 help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection as observed during the provision of care for 4 Residents (R) (R42, R31, R20, and R34) of 4 sampled residents. Staff did not wear a protective gown during wound care for R42. Staff did not wear the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during an observation of high-contact care for R31 who was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). R20 had a history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a chronic wound, and a catheter. The facility did not place R20 on EBP. R34 had chronic bilateral leg wounds that required wound care by the facility. The facility did not place R34 on EBP. Findings include: The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy, dated 4/26/24, states: Enhanced Barrier Precautions apply to residents utilizing devices or with wounds but are not limited…
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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not notify the State Long Term Care Ombudsman of hospital transfers for 2 Residents (R) (R22 and R43) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization. R22 was transferred to the hospital on 5/13/24 and 7/13/24. The State Long Term Care Ombudsman was not provided with written notice of the transfers. R43 was transferred to the hospital on 7/10/24. The State Long Term Care Ombudsman was not provided with written notice of the transfer. Findings include: The facility's Transfer or Discharge Documentation document, revised July 26, 2021, indicates: .4. Should it become necessary to make an emergency transfer or discharge to a hospital or other related institution, the facility will implement the following procedures and document in the medical record: .G. Notify the representative or other family member of the transfer and behold .I. Others will be notified as appropriate or necessary . 1. From 8/5/24 to 8/7/24 Surveyor reviewed R22's medical record which indicated R22 was transferred to the hospital on 5/13/24 and 7/13/24 for…
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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R) (R20) of 1 sampled resident received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Staff did not ensure R20 received catheter care in a manner that decreased the risk of infection. Findings include: The facility's Catheter Care, Urinary policy, last reviewed 1/1/24, indicates: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent urinary catheter-associated complications, including urinary tract infections .19. Ensure collection bag is kept below the level of the bladder and that bag and tubing is off the floor . From 8/5/24 to 8/7/24, Surveyor reviewed R20's medical record. R20 had diagnoses including intestinal infectious diseases (gastroenteritis and colitis), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder with indwelling medical device, calculus in bladder, overactive bladder, and paraplegia. R20's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/21/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R20 had intact…
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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the correct amount of Jevity 1.2 (a nutritional meal supplement) was administered for 1 Resident (R) (R7) of 1 sampled resident. On 8/6/24, Surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-D administer one 237 mL (milliliter) container of Jevity 1.2 instead of the 250 mL that was ordered by the physician. Finding include: From 8/5/24 through 8/7/24, Surveyor reviewed R7's medical record. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, adult failure to thrive, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and encounter for attention to gastrostomy tube (a medical device used to provide nutrition). R7 had a MIC-KEY tube (an external feeding tube with a button that sits at the level of the skin) through which R7 received nutrition. R7 did not take food or liquid by mouth. R7's medical record contained an order to administer a bolus (single dose given at one time) of 250 mL of Jevity 1.2…
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 · D2023-07-12 · 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
Based on staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure an individualized comprehensive care plan was developed for 1 Resident (R) (R14) of 19 sampled residents. R14 did not have an individualized care plan that included activities to meet R14's interests and support R14's physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: On 7/10/23 at 11:44 AM, Surveyor interviewed R14 who was upset and stated, I'm bored. I like to go outside. Sometimes I go to activities, but I can't hear, so sometimes I miss out. I live in the apartments over there where my friends are. I want to go home. On 7/10/23, Surveyor reviewed R14's medical record. R14 had diagnoses that included dementia, adult failure to thrive, hearing loss, and generalized weakness with abnormalities of gait and mobility. R14 had an activated Power of Attorney for Health Care (POAHC) who made decisions regarding R14's medical care. R14's MDS assessment, dated 6/19/23, indicated R14's ability to hear was moderate difficulty-speaker has to increase volume and speak distinctly. R14 was…
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 · D2023-07-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R) (R29) of 2 residents reviewed for pressure injuries received care and treatment to prevent the development of pressure injuries. R29 was at risk for the development of pressure injuries. R29's plan of care contained an intervention for a cushion in R29's recliner. R29 was observed without a cushion in R29's recliner. Findings include: The facility's Prevention of Pressure Injuries policy, last reviewed 1/1/23, contained the following information: Review the resident's care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable. The facility's Support Surface Guidelines policy, last reviewed 1/1/23, contained the following information: Redistribution support surfaces are to promote comfort for all bed or chairbound residents, prevent skin breakdown, promote circulation and provide pressure relief or reduction. R29 was admitted to the facility on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-12 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R) (R17) of 5 sampled residents was monitored for adverse consequences for a high-risk medication. R17 was prescribed furosemide (a diuretic medication). R17's plan of care did not contain monitoring for adverse consequences of furosemide. Findings include: R17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that that included congestive heart failure, dehydration, and hypertension. R17 was prescribed furosemide (used to help treat fluid retention (edema)and swelling caused by congestive heart failure, liver disease, kidney disease, or other medical conditions. Diuretic medications can cause dehydration.) Between 7/10/23 and 7/12/23, Surveyor reviewed R17's medical record and noted R17 was administered furosemide during the following time frames: ~From 3/6/23 through 3/30/23 ~From 5/25/23 through 5/27/23 ~From 6/21/23 through the time of survey. A provider note, 6/2/23, indicated R17 was seen for left leg cellulitis. 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 · D2023-07-12 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R) (R17) of 5 sampled residents was monitored for adverse consequences of an antipsychotic medication. R17 was prescribed risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) for dementia. R17 did not have a care plan that addressed antipsychotic medication use and contained monitoring interventions for adverse consequences of the medication. Findings include: R17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included vascular dementia with anxiety and anxiety disorder. R17 was prescribed risperidone which contains a black box warning (the Federal Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) most stringent warning that alerts the public and health care providers to serious side effects, such as injury or death). Between 7/10/23 and 7/12/23, Surveyor reviewed R17's medical record which indicated R17 was prescribed antipsychotic medication on 2 occasions since admission on [DATE]: ~quetiapine (an antipsychotic medication) from…
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BLANK, GIDGET | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/31/2014 |
| BARBIAU, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2021 |
| GWIDT, KATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2018 |
| MARQUARDT, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2019 |
| RADTKE, CAROL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2018 |
| SCHMIDT, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2022 |
| SKEWES, JEAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2022 |
| STECKBAUER, KEITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2020 |
| STEINGRABGER, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/01/2012 |
| THIEL, RITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2016 |
| YOUNG, JANICE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in WI
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 525599. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-01, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.