Prairie Maison
700 South Fremont, Prairie du Chien, WI 53821 · Non profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (608) 326-8471 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $152,525 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-13)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 23.8% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.2% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.6% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.5% | 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 | 4.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.0% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.4% | 16.9% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.7% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.0% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.8% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.5% | 15.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 82.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.5% | 23.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.8% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.40 | 1.66 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.75 | 2.29 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
42.5% 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 27 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 42.5%CMS range 27.2–58.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 6.3–14.7 | 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 | 1.06 | 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 47.5 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 2 beds 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 4.48 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 2.92 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.62 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-03-13 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 failed to have a system in place to assess for risk of entrapment between the mattress and side rail, failed to ensure other alternatives were tried prior to installing/utilizing side rails for 16 of 22 residents with side rails/enabler bars with a standard mattress (R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R10, R12, R13, R14, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R22, and R23) and failed to identify and recognize that the use of side rails with an air mattress increases the risk for entrapment for 6 of 22 (R2, R9, R11, R15, R21, and R24) residents who use an air mattress and side rails/enabler bars. R2's bed was equipped with A Pressure Guard APM - Bariatric Solutions alternating air mattress as well as two half bed rails. On 2/9/25, R2 was found to have a large bruise on the right side of his neck. The facility's conclusion was R2's bruise was caused by the bed rail. No new interventions were put in place following the incident, R2's Bed Rail Assessment was not complete and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-03-13 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that the residents environment remained as free of accidents and hazards as possible for 1 of 1 resident's (R10) reviewed for accidents and supervision. R10 sustained first and second degree burns on her leg when she spilled hot coffee on herself. This is evidenced by: The facility's policy titled Food Safety: Preventing Burns, dated 2023, states in part: Hot food and beverages will be served at a safe temperature that prevents burns. Staff will monitor hot food and beverage temperatures at the point of service. Hot beverages will be produced at 160 degrees to 185 degrees, the optimum temperature for patient/resident satisfaction. Hot beverages will be handled carefully during food deliver and meal set-up in an attempt to avoid spills that could cause burns. The chart below shows the estimated time for persons to receive second and third degree burns at various temperatures. Water Temperature: Time to Receive Third Degree Burn: 120…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-06-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure residents received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents from occurring for 2 of 4 residents (R) reviewed for falls (R38 and R11). R38 has a known history of falls, including one with a fracture. The facility did not identify the root cause for R38's falls or develop/implement a care plan with interventions to prevent falls. R38 fell on 5/31/24 and sustained a fracture of her left hip. The facility staff did not follow R11's care plan related to fall interventions after R11 sustained a pelvic fracture. Evidenced by: The facility's policy titled, Fall Prevention Protocol dated 6/22/21, updated 10/25/21, states in part: .All residents who are indicated by a > (greater than) 24 fall assessment score .and history of falls or risk for falls, will be identified and individualized fall precautions will be developed for that resident. Preventative measures shall be taken to decrease the number of falls whenever…
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 · D2025-07-30 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with a physician when needing to alter treatment for 1 of 9 (R32) residents reviewed for physician notification. R32 experienced severe weight loss of 10 lbs. over 7 days from 7/8/25 to 7/15/25, indicating a weight loss of 8.91%. The facility did not call the on-call physician to allow for alteration of treatment if the physician deemed it necessary. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Physician Notification of Resident Change of Condition, dated 11/2024, states, in part: . 1. Immediate Notification: the physician should be informated [sic] at the time the event occurs. [NAME] use INTERACT 3.0 CHANGE OF CONDITION FILE CARDS AND CARE PATH CARDS to guide immediate criteria. 2. Non-immediate Notification: the physician should be informed of the problem or event during office hours and generally not later than the next regular office day. The facility policy titled, Tracking Weight Changes, dated 01/2023, states, in part:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the environment was free of accident hazards for 1 of 3 residents (R46) reviewed for falls.R46 has had multiple falls since admission to the facility. The root cause was not documented for each fall.R46's care plan was not updated after each fall to include interventions to prevent future falls.R46's care plan contained an intervention that had gotten discontinued but remained on the care plan. Evidenced by: The facility's fall policy titled, Fall Report and Assessment dated 11/24 states, in part: It is the policy of this facility to complete a Risk Management and root cause analysis whenever a resident has fallen. Provide documentation of each fall and interventions to prevent future falls.The documentation must be completely filled out including immediate follow-up measures taken to prevent reoccurrence.The care plan is updated to reflect interventions put in place.R46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that…
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 · D2025-07-30 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: 5Number of residents cited: 1Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure they followed their antibiotic stewardship program that includes antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use for 1 of 1 (R16) supplemented resident.R16 was treated with an antibiotic for a UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) without appropriate indications for use.Evidenced by:The facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Policy, reviewed 1/2025, states, in part: .[Corporation Name] antibiotic stewardship program promotes the appropriate use of antibiotics and a system of monitoring to improve resident outcomes and reduced antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics will be prescribed for the correct indication, dose, and duration to appropriately treat the resident while attempting to reduce the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms or other adverse consequences or outcomes.Procedure: .2. The Nurse will utilize the McGeer's Constitutional Criteria infection criteria…
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 before2025-04-28 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, are reported immediately to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including the State Survey Agency, in accordance with State law through established procedures for 5 of 6 residents (R1, R2, R10, R11 and R12) reviewed for abuse. Facility did not report an allegation of R1 watching child pornography on his cell phone and offering to show the child pornography to R2 to State Survey Agency or Law Enforcement. R10 reported hearing a staff member yelling at another resident and the facility did not report the incident to the state agency. R11 reported that a staff member told her not to use her call light so much and the facility did not report the incident to the state agency. R12 reported that the nurse would not give her a pain pill and the facility did not report the incident to the state agency. Evidenced by: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation Reporting and Investigation policy, dated…
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 · E2025-04-28 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not have evidence that all alleged violations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 5 of 6 residents (R1, R2, R10, R11, and R12) reviewed for abuse. Facility did not fully investigate an allegation of R1 watching child pornography. R10 reported hearing a staff member yelling at another resident. The facility did not fully investigate the incident and put protections in place. R11 reported that a staff member told her not to use her call light so much. The facility did not fully investigate the incident. R12 reported that the nurse would not give her a pain pill. The facility did not fully investigate the incident. Evidenced by: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation Reporting and Investigation policy, dated 1/25, includes, in part, the following: Reporting Allegations to the Administrator and Authorities. Investigating Allegations. 1. All allegations are thoroughly investigated. The administrator initiates investigations. Example 1 On 4/28/25, Surveyor reviewed the facility grievance log. Grievance…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility did not develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 5 of 5 residents (R19, R38, R30, R28, and R16) reviewed for unnecessary medications. R19 does not have a comprehensive person-centered care plan for the use of an antipsychotic medication and anti-seizure medication. R38 does not have a resident specific care plan for the use of an antidepressant and use of Melatonin as a sleep aid. R30's care plan does not include individualized targeted behaviors and non-pharmacological interventions for the use of a psychotropic medication. R30 does not have a care plan for insomnia. R28 does not have care plans that include his psychotropic medications and what they are being used for. R16's care plan does not include individualized targeted behaviors and non-pharmacological interventions for the use of an antidepressant medication. R16 does not have a care plan for insomnia. This is evidenced by: The facility's policy titled Care Plan Policy/Procedure dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-19 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement 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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that residents who have not used psychotropic drugs are not given these drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 5 of 5 Residents (R28, R16, R30, R38, and R19) reviewed for unnecessary medications. R16, R30, R19, and R38 were prescribed psychotropic medications without individualized behavior monitoring or non-pharmacological approaches/interventions utilized. R16, R30, and R38 receive medication for insomnia and have no sleep assessment/sleep monitoring documented. R28 does not have any individualized targeted behaviors for his use of psychotropic medications. This is evidenced by: The facility's undated policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, states in part: Policy Statement - Residents will not receive medications that are not clinically indicated to treat a specific condition. Policy Interpretation and Implementation - 1. A psychotropic medication is any…
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 before2024-02-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure each resident's care plan included interventions to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 Residents reviewed for falls (R3). R3 has history of falls; her care plan does not reflect fall interventions put into place following falls that occurred. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Fall Report and Assessment Policy and Procedure, updated 10/25/21, states in part . Policy: It is the policy of this facility to complete a fall huddle and root cause analysis whenever a resident has fallen. Purpose: To provide documentation of each fall and interventions to prevent future falls. Procedure: 1. The nurse assigned to that resident is responsible for completion of the Fall Report and Assessment Form when there is a fall. 2. The form must be completely filled out including immediate follow-up measures taken to prevent reoccurrence. 4. The Plan of Care is updated to reflect interventions put in place. The facility policy titled, Care Plans,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-08-17 · 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 ensure it maintained an infection prevention and control program and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, such as COVID-19. This has the potential to affect all 40 residents. Two housekeepers were observed not following hand hygiene procedures. Dirty linen was placed on the floor. One dietary aide was observed not following hand hygiene procedures. Transmission Based Precaution (TBP) signage was not posted on the resident door. Facility staff are not fit tested annually or upon hire. This is evidenced by: Hand Hygiene/PPE/Soiled Linen Handling Examples: The facility policy entitled, Hand Hygiene, undated, states in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility that hand hygiene (HH) (e.g., hand washing and/or Alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), also known as Alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS), is to be performed consistent with accepted standards of practice in order to reduce the potential of the spread of pathogens . 1. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) .…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-23 · 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to report a resident abuse allegation timely to the Administrator and to the state agency for 1 (Resident 98) of 3 residents reviewed for resident abuse. On 01/24/2023, Resident 98 alleged the overnight staff were rough while providing care and reported it to the nursing staff; however, the nursing staff did not report the allegation to the Administrator until 1/26/23 when the allegation was then reported to the state agency. Findings included: A review of the facility's Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy and Procedure, dated 10/1/2022, revealed, It is the policy of the facility to maintain an environment where residents are free from abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property and all residents, staff, families, visitors, volunteers and resident representatives are encouraged and supported in reporting any suspected acts of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, or…
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
$152,525 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $149,380 — penalty dated 2025-03-13
- $3,145 — penalty dated 2023-09-05
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-07-18 for 22 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2008 |
| GRUNWALD, MARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2015 |
| BAKER, JANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 08/28/2024 |
| FRIAR, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| KONICHEK, MARSHA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2019 |
| OLSON, ILLENE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2018 |
| SCHRECK, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| SNITKER, CIERRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/11/2023 |
| PRAIRIE NURSING FACILITY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2008 |
| ACKERMAN, SIERRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/16/2023 |
| MARA, DEBORAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/15/2020 |
| MOORE, RITA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/18/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $233K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in WI
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Wisconsin Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 525525. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-30, 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.