Sturgeon Bay Health Services
200 N Seventh Ave, Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 50 certified beds · (920) 743-6274 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 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 | 15.6% | 16.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.6% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 2.7% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.6% | 5.7% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.2% | 18.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.8% | 16.9% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.8% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.6% | 5.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.1% | 24.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.0% | 15.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.5% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.0% | 82.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.8% | 23.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.1% | 15.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.76 | 1.66 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 5.94 | 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.
44.0% 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 57 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 51.9% 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 27 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 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 44.0%CMS range 33.5–59.6 | 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 | 10.6%CMS range 6.9–14.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 51.9% | 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 | 40.7% | 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 | 55.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 67.3% | 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 | 4.1% | 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 | 0.85 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 43.0 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.54 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-01-22 · 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 staff and resident interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 resident (R) (R1) of 4 sampled residents was transferred safely with a mechanical lift. On several instances between 12/10/24 and 12/20/24, therapy and nursing staff documented R1 was unable to safely transfer with a sit-to-stand lift. On 12/18/24, therapy staff determined R1 should be transferred with a full body (Hoyer) lift for safety. R1's care plan and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] (an abbreviated care plan used by nursing staff) were not updated with the changes and staff continued to transfer R1 with a sit-to-stand lift. On 12/18/24, staff observed significant bruising on R1's left upper arm, shoulder, and torso. On 12/20/24, lab results indicated R1 was experiencing severe acute anemia. R1 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 12/23/24 and required a blood transfusion. Findings include: The facility's High Risk Medications Anticoagulant Policy, dated 8/30/23, indicates anticoagulant medications are associated with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-04 · 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not provide Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) services for 1 resident (R) (R8) of 7 sampled residents.The facility did not contact the state mental health authority to pursue further PASRR screening for R8 when R8's 30-day exemption expired.Findings include:The facility's Resident Assessment: Coordination with Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review Program policy, dated [DATE], indicates: The facility coordinates assessments with the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) program under Medicaid to ensure individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or related condition receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs .ii. A positive Level I Screen necessitates a PASRR Level II evaluation prior to admission .2. The facility will only admit individuals with a mental disorder or intellectual disability who the state mental health or intellectual disability authority has…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-04 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 resident and staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the accurate acquisition and administration of medication for 1 resident (R) (R38) of 6 sampled residents. R38 had orders for 50 milligrams of scheduled and as needed (PRN) tramadol. R38 did not receive eight doses of the medication when the medication ran out and/or was not removed from contingency stock.Findings include:According to the United Stated Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), controlled medications are medications classified as Schedule I, II, III, IV, or V based on the potential of abuse or dependency. Schedule I has the highest potential and Schedule V has the least potential of abuse or dependency.The facility's Medication Ordering and Receiving From Pharmacy; Provider Ordering and Receiving Controlled Medications policy indicates: Ordering and Receiving Controlled Medications .5. Refill requests for CIII-CV (C = Schedule) and partial fill requests for CII: a. If one or more refills (CIII-Vs) or a partial fill quantity…
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 · D2025-07-08 · 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, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 3 residents (R) (R3, R4, and R5) of 3 residents observed during the provision of care. R3 was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). On 7/8/25, staff repositioned R3, adjusted R3's pillows and bedding, and provided incontinence care without wearing a gown and/or gloves. In addition, staff administered medication to R3, exited the room without completing hand hygiene, and retrieved supplies from the medication cart for another resident.R4 was on EBP. On 7/8/24, staff dressed and groomed R4 without wearing a gown or gloves.R5 was on EBP. On 7/8/25, staff assisted R5 with peri-care and a transfer from toilet to wheelchair without wearing a gown.Findings include:The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions Policy, revised 8/8/24, indicates: .Enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) refer to an…
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 · D2025-06-06 · 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 staff and resident interview and record review, the facility did not provide the necessary care and services to prevent pressure injuries from developing and/or promote healing for 3 residents (R) (R2, R1, and R6) of 4 sampled residents. R2 used a ROHO cushion (a type of cushion designed to prevent pressure injuries by using interconnected air cells to distribute weight and reduce pressure points) that was noted to be deflated. R2's plan of care did not indicate R2 used a ROHO cushion, did not contain an order to ensure the cushion was inflated, and was not updated with timely interventions after R2 developed what was initially thought to be a pressure injury but was later determined to be a sebaceous or pilonidal cyst. R2 was also provided a foam cushion with a cut-out but did not have an assessment for the cushion and did not use the cushion in R2's recliner.R1 and R6 had ROHO cushions. R1 and R6 did not have orders to ensure the ROHO cushions were properly inflated.Findings include:The facility's…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0551 — isolatedGive the resident's representative the ability to exercise the resident's 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure court-ordered protective placement was obtained for 1 resident (R) (R15) of 1 resident with a legal guardian was obtained when the resident's nursing home stay exceeded 90 days. R15 had a legal guardian. The facility did not obtain court-ordered protective placement for R15 to ensure R15 resided in the least restrictive environment at the facility. Findings include: State Statute Chapter 55.03(4) indicates court-ordered protective placement should be obtained for any resident admitted to a nursing home who has a legal guardian and whose nursing home stay exceeds 90 days. On 10/28/24, Surveyor reviewed R15's medical record. R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Down syndrome. R15's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/12/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of 15 which indicated R15 had severely impaired cognition. R15 a had a guardianship in place at the time of admission.…
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 · D2024-10-30 · 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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented for 1 resident (R) (R5) of 13 sampled residents. On 10/18/24, R5 was hospitalized due to not eating or drinking. R5 did not have a care plan that addressed nutrition or hydration. Findings include: The facility's Comprehensive Care Plan policy and procedure, dated 9/23/22, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objective and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment .The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. On 10/28/24, Surveyor reviewed R5's medical record. R5…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure nail care was provided for 1 resident (R) (R28) of 14 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) assistance. Staff did not provide routine nail care for R28. Findings include: The facility's Nail Care Policy, dated 4/20/23, indicates: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the provision of care to a resident's nails for good grooming and health .2. Identify conditions that increase the risk for foot or nail problems, such as diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, renal disease, or stroke. 3. Routine cleaning and inspection of nails will be provided during ADL care on an ongoing basis. On 10/28/24, Surveyor reviewed R28's medical record. R28 had diagnoses including renal failure, arthritis, and hypertension. R28's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/2/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15 which indicated R28 had moderate cognitive impairment. R28's medical record indicated R28 was responsible for R28's…
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 · D2024-10-30 · 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, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not provide appropriate care and services for 1 resident (R) (R4) of 2 sampled residents with an indwelling catheter. On 10/28/24 and 10/30/24, R4's catheter drainage bag and tubing were observed in contact with the floor. Findings include: The facility's Catheter Care policy and procedure, dated 3/15/23, does not address the positioning/placement of catheter tubing or drainage bags. On 10/28/24, Surveyor reviewed R4's medical record. R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including history of diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure, and urinary tract infection (UTI). R4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/22/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15 which indicated R4 had moderate cognitive impairment. R4 had an activated Power of Attorney (POA) for healthcare decisions. R4's medical record indicated R4 was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) on 10/9/24 for not…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure necessary treatment and services related to nutrition were provided for 1 resident (R) (R33) of 4 sampled residents. R33 was prescribed large portions for meals. During lunch service on 10/29/24, kitchen staff did not ensure R33 received large portions. In addition, R33 was prescribed a nutritional supplement 3 times per day for weight management. When R33 returned from the hospital on [DATE], the nutritional supplement was not provided for 11 days. Findings include: On 10/30/24 at 1:51 PM, [NAME] President of Success (VPS)-C indicated the facility did not have policies for nutrition or re-admission orders. Between 10/28/24 and 10/30/24, Surveyor reviewed R33's medical record. R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including T11-T12 vertebra subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing and displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the right femur. R33's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-10-04 · 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, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner. This practice had the potential to affect all 38 residents residing in the facility. The facility did not monitor and document food cooked temperatures and food cooling temperatures. Findings include: On 10/3/23, Executive Director (ED)-C verified the facility follows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code as their standard of practice. Cooked temperatures: The FDA Food Code 2022 indicates at section 3-401.11 Raw Animal Foods. (A) Except as specified under (B) and in (C) and (D) of this section, raw animal foods such as eggs, fish, meat, poultry, and food containing these raw animal foods, shall be cooked to heat all parts of the food to a temperature and for a time that complies with one of the following methods based on the food that is being cooked .Internal Cooking Temperature Specifications for Raw Animal Foods .Raw eggs cooked for immediate service, fish, intact meat, except whole meat roasts and whole muscle intact beef steak at…
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 · D2023-10-04 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications by monitoring for adverse reactions for 2 Residents (R) (R8 and R33) of 5 residents reviewed. R8 was prescribed lorazepam (a psychotropic medication used to treat anxiety). The facility did not complete an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessment (used to assess tardive dyskinesia (involuntary repetitive movements) in those who are prescribed psychotropic medications) to monitor for adverse side effects of the medication. R33 was prescribed quetiapine fumarate (Seroquel) for agitation related to unspecified dementia with anxiety. The facility did not complete an AIMS assessment. (Persons taking antipsychotic medication need to be monitored for movement disorders. The AIMS aids in the early detection of tardive dyskinesia as well as provides a method for ongoing surveillance.) Findings include: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine, last…
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.
- No harm found · C2023-10-04 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
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 ensure the mandatory staffing data submitted from 4/1/22 through 6/30/23 was complete, accurate, and auditable. This had the ability to affect all 37 residents residing in the facility. Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) data submitted by the facility from 4/1/22 through 6/30/23 was not complete, accurate, or auditable. Findings include: PBJ Staffing Data Reports generated quarterly indicated the facility triggered for Failed to Have Licensed Nursing Coverage 24 Hours/Dayon the following dates from 4/1/23 through 6/30/23: Fiscal Year Quarter 3 2023 (April 1 - June 30): 4/7, 4/8, 4/9, 4/22, 4/23, 4/30, 5/7, 5/14, 6/17, and 6/18 Fiscal Year Quarter 4 2022 (July 1 - September 30): 7/1, 7/10, 8/29, 9/3, 9/11, 9/18, and 9/25 Fiscal Year Quarter 3 2022 (April 1 - June 30): 6/20, 6/21, 6/23, 6/25, 6/26, 6/28, and 6/30 Surveyor reviewed the facility's Daily Schedule sheets for each date specified in the report and noted all dates had licensed staff on duty for each shift. On 10/4/23 at 2:15 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home…
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.
- 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 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; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 05/14/2025 |
| BAUMANN, TROY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2016 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/31/2024 |
| HOEHN, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2016 |
| CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/22/2018 |
| 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 04/14/2025 |
| 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 |
| KOLOSSO, NICHOLE | 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 |
| REITZ, KELTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2023 |
| DORCHESTER ACQUISITION LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 36 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 $209K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 525306. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-04, 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.