St Francis Health Services
1915 E Tripoli Ave, Saint Francis, WI 53235 · For profit - Corporation · 34 certified beds · (414) 483-3611 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 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 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 | 38.3% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.6% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 2.7% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 5.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.1% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.5% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.6% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.2% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 40.1% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.0% | 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 | 59.1% | 82.2% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.6% | 23.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.7% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
49.8% 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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.1% 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 39 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 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 74% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 49.8%CMS range 34.1–63.6 | 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 | 10.0%CMS range 6.7–15.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 64.1% | 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 | 56.4% | 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 | 48.7% | 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 | 97.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 87.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 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 | 0.91 | 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 34 beds and averages 31.7 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.96 is below 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 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.33 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 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 29% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-02-18 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the Facility did not ensure that residents with a pressure injury or at risk for pressure injuries received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent the development of pressure injuries and to promote healing for 2 (R43 & R4) of 3 Residents reviewed for pressure injuries. *R43 is dependent for all cares, requires substantial/maximal assistance with bed mobility and is at risk for developing pressure injuries. On 12/24/2025, the Facility implemented a care plan for R43's risk for pressure injuries with interventions not supportive of R43's needs. On 1/27/2026, R43 developed a Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) (an injury which occurs with prolonged pressure and shear forces) to R43's bilateral heels. On 2/18/2025, R43's right heel DTI almost doubled in size and observations of improper wound treatment were observed in place. *R4 was admitted with pressure injuries to the coccyx and right heel. The pressure injury to…
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 · E2026-02-18 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that it did not employ individuals who were found guilty of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment by failing to conduct a background information disclosure every four years for 1 (Social Services (SS)-G) of 8 facility staff reviewed.This deficient practice has the potential to affect residents who may receive care from SS-G. Findings include:The facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with implemented date 3/2018 and revised date 7/15/2022 documents:Policy: it is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. Screening . potential employees will be screened for a history of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property. background, reference, and credentials' checks shall be conducted on potential employees, contracted temporary staff, students affiliated…
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 · E2026-02-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 medications were stored in accordance with facility policy and procedures for 1 of 1medication room reviewed for medication storage.*On 2/17/2026, at 7:29 AM, Surveyor observed the door to the medication room wide open, and the door propped open with a doorstop. Surveyor noted an open plastic bin with medication packages inside and easily accessible.*On 02/17/2026, at 1:52 PM, Surveyor observed the vaccine refrigerator to read 30 degrees Fahrenheit with frost build up on the inside of refrigerator.Findings:The Facility's policy, titled Medication Storage dated 1/2025, indicates the following, . 3. In order to limit access to prescription medications, only licensed nurses, pharmacy staff, and those lawfully authorized to administer medications (such as medication aids) are allowed access to medication carts. Medication rooms, cabinets and medication supplies should remained locked when not in use or attended to by persons with authorized access.13. The refrigerator should be kept clean and frost-free. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-18 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not complete a significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 (R30) of 1 resident reviewed for hospice. R30 enrolled in hospice services on 12/26/25. The facility did not complete a Significant Change MDS until 1/26/26. Findings include:The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual version 1.19.1 dated 10/2024 documents:A Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) is required to be performed when a terminally ill resident enrolls in a hospice program . the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) must be within 14 days from the effective date of the hospice election. R30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, depression, and congestive heart failure. A progress note in R30's electronic health record (EHR) dated 12/29/25 at 9:15 AM documents: [R30] was evaluated by hospice on 12/26/25 and was re-admitted on to services that day. 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 · D2026-02-18 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not transmit a discharge assessment within 7 days after completion for 1 (R19) of 1 residents reviewed for late Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments.*R19 discharged to the hospital on 8/30/2025. The Discharge Return Anticipated (DCRA) MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed but not submitted.Findings include:1.) R19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after hospitalization for acute on chronic neck pain. On 8/30/2025 at 11:10 AM in the progress notes, nursing documented R19 was in bed with complaints of pain to the neck and back. R19's family indicated R19 was not responding as they normally would. R19's vital signs were abnormal, R19 was placed on 3 liters of oxygen and transferred to the hospital.R19's DCRA MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed. The assessment was not submitted.In an interview on 2/17/2026 at 1:24 PM, Surveyor shared with MDS Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-E the concern R19's DCRA assessment dated [DATE] had not been submitted as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-18 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility did not ensure residents with hearing impairment received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities for 1 of 1 (R2) residents reviewed for hearing.* Surveyor observed R2 to be very hard of hearing and not wearing hearing aids. According to R2's most recent audiology consult, and R2's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), R2 uses hearing aids. The facility failed to ensure R2 received treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities. Findings include:R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (a progressive lung disease with long term breathing problems).R2's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documents a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating R2 is cognitively intact, has adequate hearing and uses a hearing aid.On 02/16/2026, at 9:52 AM, Surveyor interviewed R2. Surveyor noted R2 to be very hard of hearing. R2…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-18 · 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility did not always ensure that 1 out of 1 residents ( R6) reviewed for urinary incontinence received the necessary care and services to maintain or restore bladder incontinence. R6 experienced a decline from frequently incontinent of urine to always being incontinent of urine and the facility did not implement interventions in place to help restore R6's urinary continence. This is evidenced by: R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, epilepsy, dementia, mood disorder, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and unspecified psychosis.R6's most recent annual MDS ( Minimum Data Set) dated 4/19/25 documents that R6 is frequently incontinent of urine and a trial of a toileting program, prompted voiding or bladder training has not been attempted.R6's Urinary Incontinence and Indwelling Catheter CAA ( Care Area Assessment), dated 4/19/25, was triggered r/t (related to) need for assistance with toileting…
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 before2026-02-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to reduce the transmission of disease and infection for 1 (R3) of 12 residents observed. During observation of catheter care for R3, certified nursing assistant (CNA)-I did not perform appropriate hand hygiene or wear a gown when enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were in place for R3.Findings include:The facility's policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions with implemented date 3/25/24 and revised date 8/8/24 documents: It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs).All staff receive training on enhanced barrier precautions and the definition of high-contact resident care activities upon hire and at least annually . all licensed nursing staff receive training on high-contact care activities and common organisms that require enhanced barrier precautions . An order for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-01 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, review of the Misconduct Incident Report, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was documented regarding a potential visitor-to-resident altercation for one (R1) resident out of a sample of 14 residents reveiwed for abuse. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, revised 07/15/22, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property .V. Investigation of Alleged Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation .B. Written procedures for investigations include .4. Identifying and interviewing all involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegation(s). Review of the Misconduct Incident Report (final report) provided by the facility dated 05/07/25 revealed On 05/01/25 R1…
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 before2025-04-10 · 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 staff interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an effective infection control program under which it investigates, controls, and prevents infections in the facility. * Total infection rates were not calculated accurately and rates of infection for individual infection types were not calculated. Since infection rates were not calculated it was not possible to analyze the data to determine if there was a rise in the prevalence of infections from month to month with a potential to affect 29 of 29 residents. Findings include: 1.) On 4/9/25, at 1:30 PM., Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B, who is in charge of the infection control program. DON-B indicated she does not calculate individual rates of infection and will count an infection in more than 1 month if it continues to the next month or is chronic. DON-B indicated she does not separate the facility associated infection from the community based infections. On 4/9/25 the facility's monthly infection rate surveillance summary reports from 10/24 to 3/25 were reviewed and did not include…
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 · E2025-04-10 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 4 (R3, R9, R5 and R14) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalizations received a written transfer/discharge notice that included the date of transfer, reason for transfer, location of transfer, appeal rights and contact information of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. *R3 was transferred to the hospital while residing in the Facility and evidence was not provided that they or their representative were given the required transfer notice information. *R9 was transferred to the hospital while residing in the Facility and evidence was not provided that they or their representative were given the required transfer notice information. *R5 was transferred to the hospital while residing in the Facility and evidence was not provided that they or their representative were given the required transfer notice information. *R14 was transferred to the hospital while residing in the Facility and evidence was not provided that they or their representative were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · 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 observations, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 (R22) of 1 residents reviewed for falls. *R22 had three unwitnessed falls that were not thoroughly investigated to determine a root cause and develop interventions that addressed the cause and prevent future falls. Findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled Accidents and Supervision dated 7/14/2022 documents: Policy: The resident environment will remain as free of accident hazards as possible. Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: 1. Identifying hazard(s) and risk(s). 2. Evaluating and analyzing hazard(s) and risk(s). 3. Implementing interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s). 4. Monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: The facility shall establish and utilize a systematic approach to address resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
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 food was prepared and served in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 (R15) of 1 residents reviewed for a mechanically-altered diet. R15 has a puree diet order (level 1), R15 was served a meal tray with a banana cut in half, not pureed as per R15's diet order and meal ticket specification. Findings include: The Facility Diet/Texture Conversion Chart states in part: L1/Puree . follows the regular diet when possible and menu items are pureed . According to the Swallowing Disorder Foundation a Level 1: Pureed Nutrition Therapy diet consists of pureed, homogenous, and cohesive foods. Food should be pudding-like. No coarse textures, raw fruits or vegetables, nuts, and so forth are allowed. The diet recommendation is that fresh bananas be served well-mashed. On 4/9/25, at 08:52 AM, during the kitchen task, Surveyor observed R15's breakfast meal being prepared, the toast, omelet and oatmeal were individually pureed and plated for service. The plate was placed on a food service tray which had half of a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the Facility did not ensure food was prepared and served in a sanitary manner. This practice affected 1 of 2 residents with a mechanically-altered diet. R15 was served pureed food that was not brought up to the correct temperature to prevent bacteria growth in the danger zone (below 135 degrees F) The [NAME] was observed changing gloves with no handwashing after gloves were removed, before a new pair of gloves were put on. Findings include: The Facility Policy and Procedure titled, Food: Preparation last revised 9/2017, states in part: Policy Statement All foods are prepared in accordance with FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Food Code. Procedures 1. All staff will practice proper hand washing techniques and glove use. 2. Dining Services staff will be responsible for food preparation procedures that avoid contamination by potentially harmful physical, biological, and chemical contamination . 4. The Dining Services Director/Cook(s) will be responsible for food preparation techniques which minimize the amount of time that foods are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-02-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 kitchens. This had the potential to affect all 32 Residents. *On 1/30/24 and 1/31/24, during the main kitchen tour, Surveyor observed multiple pieces of kitchen equipment that were not clean. *On 1/31/24, at 7:40 AM, Surveyor observed the robot coupe food processor with splattered food dried on the outside, and crumbs in the crevices. *On 1/30/24 and 1/31/24, Surveyor observed Resident room trays being distributed without lids on the main entree, all cups of liquid, and side dishes were not covered. *The internal dishwashing machine temperature was not being monitored and staff in the dish machine area did not know how to monitor the dishwashing temperatures to ensure dishes & utensils were being sanitized correctly. Findings Include: Surveyor reviewed the facility's General Sanitation of Kitchen policy and procedure and notes the following: .General Sanitation of Kitchen Food and nutrition services staff will maintain the sanitation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE — 59 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 58 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 58; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSHC WISCONSIN LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/04/2017 |
| BAUMANN, TROY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/04/2017 |
| HOEHN, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/04/2017 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2024 |
| CONTINUUM THERAPY PARTNERS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/04/2017 |
| NSH REHAB LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| WIPFLI LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| BELONGIA, CHRISTINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| GEE, DARREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/30/2021 |
| GREER, LAUREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/29/2023 |
| LOPEZ, ANN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2016 |
| PATZER, COLLEEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/14/2023 |
| PURTELL, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| SIDHU, SARFRAZ | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2025 |
| NSH 1915 EAST TRIPOLI AVENUE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 37 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
8 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 $212K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in WI
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Wisconsin Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 525477. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-18, 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.