Rennes Health And Rehab Center-Rhinelander
1970 Navajo St, Rhinelander, WI 54501 · For profit - Corporation · 122 certified beds · (715) 420-0728 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — 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 $23,413 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-13)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 fell from 5 to 2 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 | 18.8% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.3% | 5.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.9% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.1% | 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 | 7.8% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.1% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.9% | 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 | 5.6% | 5.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.0% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.9% | 15.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.8% | 82.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.7% | 23.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.5% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.95 | 1.66 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.77 | 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.
81.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 240 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 69.4% 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 134 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 0.48 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 79% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% 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 | 81.8%CMS range 77.3–85.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.1%CMS range 6.8–11.8 | 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 | 69.4% | 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 | 70.9% | 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 | 57.5% | 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 | 98.7% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 1.3% | 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 | 6.3%CMS range 3.5–9.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 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 122 beds and averages 77.5 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 44 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.96 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.81 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.51 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.12 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-10-13 · 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 the residents' environment remains as free of accident hazards as possible. The facility did not ensure staff followed supervision of residents when needed to prevent accidents, which affected resident (R) R1 and had potential to effect 5 other residents.Facility staff did not stay with R1 during the time R1 was in a spa bath. Staff intermittently checked on R1 during the spa bath, and after approximately 2 hours, staff found R1 in the spa tub unresponsive, which required facility to call 911 for Emergency Medical Service (EMS). EMS found R1 with body temperature of 106 degrees Fahrenheit (F), Blood Pressure (B/P) 116/96, Respirations (R) 10 breaths per minute requiring intubation for breathing, and Pulse (P) 59 and increasing to 124 beats per minute (bpm). R1 had first degree burns (reddened skin) noted to be greatest on his right upper extremity, over his abdomen, and a second degree burn to his left calf, skin was blistered and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility did not ensure staff maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility did not transport soiled laundry in a sanitary manner. This has the potential to affect the 17 residents that live between R90's room and the dirty linen storage area.The facility did not transport clean linen from laundry through the facility to patient's rooms on a hanging rack. This has the potential to affect all 35 residents whose linen at minimum is laundered and transported by the facility. Registered Nurse (RN) F did not practice hand hygiene or wear gloves when giving a subcutaneous injection to a resident (R) (R32).Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) H delivered fresh water cups into R10's and R73's room and then into R7's and R24's room without practicing any hand hygiene between rooms and after handling dirty water cups. CNA G did not perform hand hygiene after…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-11 · 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 observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility did not ensure that a resident who is fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feedings for 1 out of 1 resident (R) reviewed. (R90)Nurse did not measure enteral feeding appropriately and if not questioned, she would have had too much enteral feeding in the tube feeding set up.Nurse did not prime the tubing before connecting the feeding tubing to the J-G tubing, resulting in the air in tubing to be pushed into R90's stomach.Findings include:Surveyor asked for all policies that pertain to tube feeding. Surveyor received two polices Maintaining Patency of a Feeding Tube (Flushing), revised 2012, and Administering Medications through an Enteral Tube, revised May 2014. Neither policy addresses setting up and administering a tube feeding.The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Enteral Nutrition Practice Recommendations indicate that priming the tubing is a standard…
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 · E2025-10-13 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility did not provide adequate equipment to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member, or to a centralized staff work area, for 1 resident (R1) out of 6 sampled residents. This had the potential to affect all 6 residents. * R1 did not have access to a call light while R1 was left in spa room unsupervised. Findings include: On 10/02/25 at 10:29 AM, Surveyor observed spa room down 400-wing. Surveyor did not observe a call light in the spa tub room. Surveyor did not observe a call light cord long enough to reach to the spa tub room from the shower room. On 10/02/25 at 10:36 AM, Surveyor observed spa room down 100-wing. Surveyor did not observe a call light in the spa tub room. Surveyor did not observe a call light cord long enough to reach to the spa tub room from the shower room. On 10/02/25 at 3:14 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B and asked DON B's expectation for call lights in the spa room and staff utilizing the call light. DON B reported…
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 · D2025-10-13 · 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 did not immediately report to the resident's representative when a resident was found unresponsive in spa tub and was transferred via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the Emergency Department (ED). This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (R) reviewed, (R1).Findings include: R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, in part, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, left bundle branch block, bipolar disorder with moderate depression, COVID-19 respiratory disease, urinary tract infection, hypertensive chronic kidney disease stage 1-4, epigastric pain chronic, flaccid neuropathic bladder, anxiety, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, peptic ulcer, benign prostatic hyperplasia, right artificial hip and knee joint. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/05/25, identified on admission that R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14. This indicated R1 had intact cognition. The MDS assessment also identified R1 required…
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 · D2025-10-13 · 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 the interview and record review, the facility did not report 1 of 1 (R1) potential misconduct incidents to the State's Office of Caregiver Quality (OCQ) via the State's Misconduct Incident Reporting (MIR) system immediately upon learning of the incident.Findings include: Facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention, dated reviewed on November 23, 2016, states in part: .Neglect Definition-Means failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness.*Facility will immediately report all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, of abuse, including injuries of unknown source to the facility administration and to the Division of Quality Assurance. CMS defines immediately to be as soon as possible but not to exceed 24 hours after discovery of the incident. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, in part, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, left bundle branch block, bipolar disorder with moderate depression, COVID-19…
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 · D2024-08-08 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility did not conduct a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II screen for R7, who has a serious mental disorder and is taking psychotropic medication to treat symptoms of major mental disorder to ensure he received care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs. The facility practice affected 1 of 2 residents reviewed (R7). This is evidenced by: Surveyor requested and reviewed the policy titled Forward Health Update, Your First Source of Forward Health Policy and Program dated November 2023. The policy in part read: PASRR Level II Referrals: ~As part of the PASRR Level I screen process in the portal, if required, the completed Level I screen will be forwarded on to Wisconsin's PASRR onto Wisconsin's PASRR Level II screen. ~The Level II screen is in place to determine if a person has a .serious mental illness as defined by federal PASRR regulations. Responses completed during the Level I screening process will determine…
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 · D2024-08-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive individualized care plan to meet the needs of 2 of 18 residents (R) R29 and R8. This is evidenced by: According to the Resident Assessment Instrument, The comprehensive care plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool. It must include measurable objectives and time frames and must describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. The care plan should be revised on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the resident and the care that the resident is receiving. Example 1 R29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies-with behavior disturbance and dementia and is on palliative care. R29's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) is an annual assessment with a date of 07/20/24 indicating R29 requires partial to moderate assistance for personal hygiene,…
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 · D2023-08-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 treatment and care were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 sampled residents (R)228. The facility did not give instruction on the care plan for staff on the proper use of R228's C-collar (cervical neck brace) or Cervical Thoracic Orthosis (CTO) body brace, nor did staff recognize when the brace was applied incorrectly, and not applied as ordered by the physician. This resulted in pain and an emergency room visit for evaluation for R228. This is evidenced by: R228 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 3:25 p.m., and has diagnoses that include, in part, head injury, neck fracture in 3 areas, fractures in 2 areas of the upper back, multiple rib fractures and collar bone fracture following a motor vehicle accident. Surveyor reviewed doctor's order, dated 08/24/23, that indicated R228 needs to wear C-collar at all times and CTO brace when (sitting up) greater than 45 degrees, sitting upright 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-30 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility did not ensure appropriate care and services were provided to prevent urinary tract infection (UTI) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed with an indwelling catheter (R38). R38 did not have a physician order or care plan with specific approaches for care of the indwelling catheter. This is evidenced by: Surveyor requested and reviewed the facility policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary, which was not dated. The policy in part read: Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent infection of the resident's urinary tract. General Guidelines: ~Determine if changes in daily urinary catheter procedures have been made (e.g. review of care plan .physician orders, ect.). ~Observe the resident for signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection and urinary retention . On 08/28/23 at 10:22 AM, Surveyor spoke with R38 regarding her catheter. R38 indicated staff take care of her catheter by emptying her urine. Surveyor observed a urinary catheter hanging on R38's lower…
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 · D2023-08-30 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility did not comprehensively assess trauma or develop a trauma-informed care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R) 1, with diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and history of trauma. R1 has a diagnosis of PTSD with her admission assessment identifying past trauma. The facility did not comprehensively assess R1's trauma or develop a trauma informed care plan. This is evidenced by: Surveyor requested and reviewed the facility policy titled Trauma Informed Care, which is not dated. The policy in part reads: Purpose: To guide staff in appropriate and compassionate care specific to individuals who have experienced trauma. General Guidelines: ~This facility supports a culture of emotional well-being and physical safety for staff, residents and visitors. ~Trauma-informed care is culturally sensitive and person-centered . Resident-Care Strategies ~As part of the comprehensive assessment, identify history of trauma or interpersonal violance when possible. Identifying…
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 · D2023-08-30 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 nursing staff had the specific competencies and skill set necessary to care for 1 of 1 resident (R)228 with specialized needs. Staff did not have the competency and training to appropriately don and doff a C-collar (cervical neck brace) and a Cervical Thoracic Orthosis (CTO) (upper body brace) for R228's care. Findings include: R228 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 3:25 p.m., and has diagnoses that include, in part, head injury, neck fracture in 3 areas, fractures in 2 areas of the upper back, multiple rib fractures and collar bone fracture following a motor vehicle accident. Surveyor reviewed doctor's order, dated 08/24/23, that indicated R228 needs to wear Aspen collar (C-collar) at all times and CTO brace when (sitting up) greater than 45 degrees, sitting upright or out of bed. Care plan dated 08/24/23 states to wear Aspen collar (C-collar) at all times and CTO when out of bed. On 08/28/23 at 10:36 AM, Surveyor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-30 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility did not ensure a medication administration rate of less than 5%. During the Medication Administration Task, there were 3 errors out of 36 opportunities observed, yielding a medication administration rate of 8.33%. Resident (R) 20 self administers her inhalers upon directions by staff. Registered Nurse (RN) E handed R20 the Corticosteroid inhaler to administer, before the bronchodilator inhaler. Following the Corticosteroid inhaler administration, RN E did not encourage or offer R20 to rinse her mouth. R45 was given fast-acting insulin (Humalog) at 7:32 AM and did not eat a meal until 8:28 AM. This was 56 minutes after the administration of a fast-acting insulin. This is evidenced by: Drugs. com states for Symbicort, .To reduce the chance of developing a yeast infection in your mouth, rinse with water (but do not swallow) after using this medicine . Drugs.com also states Symbicort contains a combination of budesonide and formoterol. Budesonide is a corticosteroid that reduces inflammation in the body. Formoterol is a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility did not implement appropriate infection prevention and control practices to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Staff did not perform hand hygiene when warranted or sanitize the durable medical equipment for 1 of 4 residents (R) R32 observed for cares. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) I did not perform hand hygiene when warranted when providing cares to R32. CNA I and CNA J did not sanitize mechanical lift before or after use for R32. This is evidenced by: Example 1 Surveyor requested and reviewed the facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene. The policy in part reads, This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. The policy lists instances where employees must conduct hand hygiene. such as: Before and after direct resident contact. Before and after assisting a resident with personal care. Upon and after becoming in contact with a resident's intact skin. After contact with a resident's mucous membranes and body fluids 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
$23,413 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $23,413 — penalty dated 2025-10-13
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to RENNES GROUP — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 4.5 | -2.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 4.5 | -2.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.5★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RENNES, DEBRA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 10/07/2010 |
| RENNES, TIMOTHY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 10/07/2010 |
| LANGE, ROBERT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/30/2022 |
| SCHINGICK, NICOLE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/22/2019 |
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 $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 525589. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-11, 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.