Riverview Health Services
428 N 6th St, Tomahawk, WI 54487 · For profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (715) 453-2511 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- the CMS record shows $5,286 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-20)
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 | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 improved from 3 to 4 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 | 9.1% | 16.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.4% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.9% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 32.2% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.0% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.8% | 95.0% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.9% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.1% | 24.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.6% | 15.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 42.9% | 82.2% | 79.4% | 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.
51.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 67 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 51.5%CMS range 40.2–60.9 | 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 | 10.2%CMS range 6.7–14.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 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 30.7 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 19 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.71 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.57 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-01-27 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — widespreadEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure nursing staff had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to ensure resident safety for 3 of 30 residents (R1, R4, and R8). Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) assessed R1 after a fall, without contacting a Registered Nurse (RN), the Director of Nursing (DON), or R1's provider prior to moving R1 for 5 of 8 falls. No documentation to support that the LPN contacted an RN prior to moving R8 after a fall.LPN did not report a change of condition in R4 to an RN.Per the Wisconsin LPNs Standard of Practice (N 6.04), -LPNs must work under the general supervision of an RN or direction of a provider. -LPNs provide basic nursing care, including collecting data and recording it. -LPNs must report changes in a patient's condition to the appropriate person. -LPNs must consult with a provider if they know a delegated act may harm a patient. The facility's policy titled, Fall Prevention and Management Guidelines, read in…
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 · D2026-01-27 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her 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 observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication by ensuring the ability to communication interventions were in place for 1 of 4 residents (R8).Surveyor observed R8 sitting in lounge area without the jingle bell R8 uses to communicate with staff when R8 needs something.R8 was admitted to facility on 11/03/25 with diagnosis that include Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia fluctuation (difficulty in performing or controlling voluntary movements).R8's admission Minimum Data with target date of 11/09/25 and documented on 11/13/25 indicates:R8 has a BIMS of 7/15 (moderately impaired).R8 has no speech sometimes understood and sometimes understands.R8's care plan, I have difficulty communicating as evidenced by whispered/soft voice, initiated on 11/03/25.R8's ADL care plan intervention labeled and dated 11/07/25 Communication states: Uses jingle bell when not in bed.On 01/26/2026 at 9:18 AM,…
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 · D2026-01-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not notify a physician and/or RN about a significant change in a resident's physical status for 1 resident (R4) of 13 residents reviewed in a sample of 13.Documentation in R4's medical record by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) I indicated a change in R4's physical condition during an evening shift.LPN I did not notify a physician or a Registered Nurse (RN) for further guidance, resulting in R4's prolonged discomfort resulting from a dislocated hip.R4's medical record did not include further documentation of assessment by licensed staff following LPN I's initial documentation of a physical change in R4's status, resulting in delayed intervention for a dislocated hip. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, titled Change in Condition: When to report to the MD/NP/PA, adapted from AMDA Clinical Practice Guidelines 2003, states in part: Immediate notification.any symptom, sign or apparent discomfort that is: acute or sudden in onset, and a marked change in relation to usual symptoms and signs, or unrelieved by measures already…
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 · D2026-01-27 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure residents/representatives received written or verbal consent of Bed Hold reserved payment at time of transfer and the notice of transfer prior to discharge or transfer did not include written specific reason the specific for transfer for 2 of 3 residents (R4 and R14). R4 was sent to the hospital via ambulance on 09/19/25 for a change in condition. R4's representative was provided with a Bed Hold Request form that did not contain the written specific reason for transfer and was dated 09/22/25 of receiving verbal consent.R14 was sent to hospital via ambulance on 12/27/2025 for a change in condition. R14's representative was provided with a Bed Hold Request form that did not contain the written specific reason for transfer and was dated 12/29/25 of verbal consentThe facility policy, titled Bed Hold Notice, dated 04/23/25, states: It is the policy of this facility to provide written information to the resident and/or the resident representative regarding bed hold practices both well in advance, and at the time 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 · D2026-01-27 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility did not conduct a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (R33) within 30 days of admission to ensure individuals with a serious mental disorder received care and services in the most integrated setting possible. This is evidenced by:The facility policy, titled Resident Assessment - Coordination with PASARR Program, with a date implemented of 11/10/25, reads in part, The Level II resident review must be completed within 40 calendar days of admission.Surveyor reviewed R33's record and noted R33 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of major depressive order.R33's original order included Quetiapine Fumarate 25MG once daily and Duloxetine HCl 30 MG twice a day. R33's Quetiapine Fumarate was discontinued and on 1/26/26 R33's Duloxetine HCl was increased to 60MG in the morning and 30MG at bedtime.Surveyor noted on 11/6/25, a Level I PASRR screening noted R33 had a major mental disorder and has taken psychotropic…
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 · D2026-01-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure pain management was provided to residents, consistent with the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 resident (R4) of 2 residents reviewed for pain management in a sample of 13. Facility did not develop and implement a care plan on pain management for R4 with a known diagnosis of dementia. R4 may not normally recognize and verbalize when having pain resulting in a prolonged status of discomfort while experiencing a hip dislocation. This is evidenced by:The facility policy, titled Pain Management, last revised 08/09/2022, states in part: The interventions for pain management will be incorporated into the components of the comprehensive care plan, addressing conditions or situations that may be associated with pain or may be included as a specific pain management need or goal.Non-pharmacological interventions will include but are not limited to.cold compress, warm shower/bath, massage, turning and repositioning, cognitive/behavioral interventions such as music,…
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 · F2024-11-06 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure menus were followed to meet the nutritional needs of each resident. This practice had the potential to affect all 38 residents residing in the facility. Meals were not provided as listed on the menu. The facility did not consult with the Registered Dietitian when changes were made to the menu to ensure nutritional adequacy. Findings: According to The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, The menu must meet the Recommended Dietary Allowances, but the actual amount of food served to an individual resident should meet her/ his needs, not exceed them. Food is an essential component of quality of life; an unpalatable or unacceptable diet can lead to poor food and fluid intake, resulting in malnutrition and related negative health effects. On 11/04/24 at 8:11 AM, Surveyor completed initial tour of the kitchen with Dietary Manager (DM) F. DM F reported to Surveyor she will be changing menu items this week. DM F reported the planned menu for Wednesday's lunch and Thursday's dinner will be substituted with a soup and sandwich.…
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 before2024-11-06 · 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 proper sanitization and food handling practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness for all 38 residents (R). The facility did not measure the internal temperature of the dishwasher. Dietary staff did not wear appropriate hair restraints. Findings: DISHWASHER The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code requires that commercial dishwashers achieve a utensil surface temperature of 71°C (160°F) as measured by an irreversible registering temperature indicator. On 11/04/24 at 1:23 PM, Surveyor observed Dietary Aide (DA) E washing dishes using a commercial dishwasher. DA E stated the dishwasher was a high temperature dishwasher. Surveyor noted the dishwasher's temperature log was not completed on 11/02/24 and 11/03/24. DA E stated sometimes he forgets. Surveyor asked DA E how dietary staff check to ensure the dishwasher's temperature is reaching the appropriate temperature for sanitization. DA E stated they were using test strips but had not been doing this. DA E was not able to find the test…
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 · D2024-11-06 · 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
Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure staff followed procedures for the accurate administration of insulin. Staff did not complete a safety check by priming the needle on an insulin pen to ensure the injectable pens were dispensing insulin before administration for 1 of 2 residents (R), (R3). Findings include: Manufacturer's instructions for insulin pens state in part, .Step 3. Perform a Safety test. Always perform the safety test before each injection. Performing the safety test ensures that you get an accurate dose by: ensuring that pen and needle work properly. Removing air bubbles. A. Select a dose of 2 units by turning the dosage selector. B. Take off the outer needle cap and keep it to remove the used needle after injection. Take off the inner needle cap and discard it. C. Hold the pen with the needle pointing upwards. D. Tap the insulin reservoir so that any air bubbles rise up towards the needle. E. Press the injection button all the way in. Check if insulin comes out of the needle tip. You may have to perform the safety test several times before…
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 · D2024-11-06 · 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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure one of five residents (R15) reviewed for unnecessary medications had appropriate monitoring and indication for use of an antipsychotic medication. R15 was prescribed risperidone for a diagnosis of dementia with behaviors. Behavior monitoring did not include the behaviors the medication was being used to treat. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Psychotropic Medications read in part, Residents should not receive psychotropic drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition, as diagnosed and documented in the clinic record, and the medication is beneficial to the resident, as demonstrated by monitoring and documentation of the resident's response to the medication(s). Psychotropic medications can affect behavior, mood, thoughts, and perceptions. Psychotropic medications include antipsychotic medications. Risperidone is an antipsychotic medication used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. R15 was admitted…
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 · D2024-11-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not perform hand hygiene when warranted during resident cares. The facility practice affected 1 of 3 residents observed for cares (R10). Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C did not perform hand hygiene after performing R10's peri care and before proceeding to touch presumably clean items. Findings Include: Surveyor requested and received the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene dated 11/02/22. The policy in part read: Policy: All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. This applies to all staff working in all locations within the facility. Definitions: Hand Hygiene is a general term for cleaning your hands by handwashing with soap and water or the use of antiseptic hand rub, also known as alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR). Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Staff will perform hand hygiene when indicated using proper technique consistent with accepted standards of practice. Additional Considerations: a. The use of…
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 before2023-09-27 · 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 prepare and store foods in a sanitary manner. The facility practices had the potential to affect all 50 residents. The facility does not have a system in place to verify the internal hot water temperature of the hot water sanitizing dishwasher. During the initial tour of the kitchen, Dietary Manager (DM) G and Dietary Aide (DA) H were observed with facial hair at sides and below surgical mask that were being worn. DM G did not perform hand hygiene after contaminating his hands with dirt and grime. DM G proceeded to tour the kitchen with Surveyor, touching presumable clean surfaces and food items with his contaminated hands. Potentially hazardous food and drinks were stored in the kitchen refrigerator and were not dated with open by and use by dates. DM G was observed spraying dirty dishes in the dish room with his shirt being sprayed with contaminated water. DM G proceeded to prepare and serve foods at counter and steam table. DM G's contaminated shirt was observed contacting clean food surfaces. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-27 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 prepare foods in a manner that maintained the nutritional value and palatability of foods. The facility practice has the potential to affect 14 of 50 sampled and supplemental residents (R20, R14, R45, R22, R25, R9, R12, R26, R27, R31, R21, R35, R15 and R7). Dietary Manager (DM) G was observed preparing lunch items of altered consistency without using a recipe or instructions to ensure nutritional values were maintained. This has the potential to affect 11 residents of 50 who are served an altered consistency diet (R20, R14, R45, R22, R25, R9, R12, R26, R27, R31 and R21). R35 indicated the foods served are often bland in taste and the meats are too tough to chew. R15 expressed that the food was cold and indicated it was not good. R250 expressed that the food was cold and said it was hard to eat. R7 complained about the beef tips for lunch. R7 stated he had to chew and chew. This is evidenced by: Example 1 On 9/26/23 at 11:45 a.m., Surveyor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-27 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 3 of 3 sampled residents (R7, R18, R35) did not receive care and services to maintain and/or improve their highest level of range of motion (ROM). R7 did not receive assistance to ambulate twice daily per his restorative program. R18 did not wear hand brace at night as recommended by occupational therapy (OT). R35's care plan was not updated to indicate independence with walker. Findings include: R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include fracture of left tibia and fibula, muscle weakness, and abnormal gait and mobility. Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/14/23, confirmed R7 scored 15/15 during Brief Interview for Mental Status, indicating intact cognition. On 09/25/23 at 11:41 AM, Surveyor interviewed R7. R7 reported he has not received therapy services in two weeks. On 09/27/23 at 9:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) J regarding the brace that R18 was supposed to be wearing per therapy.…
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
$5,286 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $1,899 — penalty dated 2024-02-20
- $3,387 — penalty dated 2024-01-30
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 | 4 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 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/31/2024 |
| BAUMANN, TROY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2016 |
| HOEHN, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2016 |
| CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2025 |
| 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 |
| HOSTETLER, HARRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2023 |
| IHM, KYLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/26/2024 |
| 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 |
| GPH TOMAHAWK RIVERVIEW LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 33 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 $274K 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 525332. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-27, 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.