Wausau Manor Health Services
3107 Westhill Dr, Wausau, WI 54401 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 68 certified beds · (715) 842-0575 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
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 21.4% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.4% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.4% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.8% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 5.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.0% | 18.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.9% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.4% | 5.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.9% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.5% | 15.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.7% | 82.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.5% | 23.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.1% | 15.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.72 | 1.66 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.04 | 2.29 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
53.1% 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 117 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.7% 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 45 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% 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 | 53.1%CMS range 44.5–60.8 | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 7.4–12.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 46.7% | 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 | 35.6% | 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 | 33.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.4% | 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 | 95.0% | 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 | 89.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.6% | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 4.2–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 68 beds and averages 53.1 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 1.17 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.04 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.77 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.36 to 0.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-10-02 · 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 maintain a safe and sanitary environment in which food is prepared and distributed. This has the potential to affect all 56 residents who reside in the facility.Facility staff did not conduct appropriate hand hygiene during food preparation and were observed touching ready to eat foods with contaminated gloved hands.This is evidenced by:The facility policy, titled Food Preparation, revised last 9/2017, states: All Foods are prepared in accordance with the FDA Food Code.1. All staff will practice proper hand washing techniques and glove use.The facility policy, titled Hand Washing- Food and Nutrition Services, revised last 8/16/22, states: Employees will wash hands as frequently as needed throughout the day using proper hand washing procedures1. When to wash:a. When entering the kitchen.g. During food preparation, as often as necessary to remove soil or contamination and to prevent cross contamination when changing task.i. Before donning disposable gloves for working with food and after gloves are removed.On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-10-02 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure garbage and refuse were properly disposed in the outside garbage storage receptacles. This has the potential to affect all 33 residents residing in the facility.This is evidenced by:The facility policy titled, Environment, last revised 9/2017, states: .All trash will be contained in covered, leak-proof containers that prevent cross contamination.According to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP: Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, revised last 4-25-25, garbage receptacles should be covered to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests.On 9/29/25 at 11:30 AM, Surveyor observed garbage dumpster uncovered, right side lid was open. On 9/29/25 at 2:30 PM, Surveyor observed garbage dumpster uncovered, right side lid was open. Surveyor observed for 15 minutes to make sure it wasn't being used.On 09/30/25 at 9:30 AM, Surveyor interviewed the Environment Services Manager (ESM) O who stated, Waste Management come early on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to take garbage.On 9/30/25 at 2:54 PM, Surveyor and Dietary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-10-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections.Staff did not perform hand hygiene when changing gloves during resident cares and procedures for 4 of 12 residents (R). R31, R9, R5, R56Staff did not clean the mechanical lift in between patient use.Findings include:Facility policy and procedure titled, Hand Hygiene, dated 11/02/22, states in part: 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).2. Hand hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the conditions listed in, but not limited to, the attached hand hygiene table.6. a. The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene. If your task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, and immediately after removing gloves .The attached Hand Hygiene Table, dated 11/2/2022, states in part: Alcohol Based Hand Rub or Soap and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-02 · 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 interview and record review, the facility did not develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for the diagnosis of Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) with the use of a diuretic for 1 of 16 residents (R) R9 reviewed for care plans.This is evidenced by: The facility's policy, Comprehensive Care Plan read in part, The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, and edema. R9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, confirmed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) could not be completed. Staff assessment of R9's cognition showed R9 to have moderately impaired cognition. Review of R9's medical record identified orders for the following diagnosis of CHF:-Metolazone 5 mg tablet, give one tablet by mouth…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-02 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not include the participation of a resident or family representative at care planning conferences. This occurred for 3 of 4 residents, (R) R2, R9, and R48, reviewed for care conferences. The facility did not conduct and document care planning conferences for R2, R9, and R48. Findings: The facility policy, Comprehensive Care Plan read in part, The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised as appropriate by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment, and as needed with changes in condition. The physician, other practitioner, or nurse designee will inform the resident and/or resident representative of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment, and treatment alternatives/options. On 09/29/25 at 1:17 PM, Surveyor interviewed R9's activated Power of Attorney (POA). During the interview R9's POA reported concerns about R9 discharging to a different facility. R9's POA reported being unsure of what was going on or if R9 would be able to remain at the facility. On 09/30/25,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations and interview, the facility did not ensure a resident who was dependent for repositioning, personal cares, and hydration receive timely assistance for 1 out of 4 residents (R) (R5) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living. R5 who is dependent for hydration was not offered hydration during cares. R5 who is dependent for repositioning and turning was not repositioned for over 3 hours.This is evidenced by:The facility policy, titled Hydration, last revised 9/19/2024, states: The facility offers each resident sufficient fluid, including water and other liquids, consistent with resident needs and preferences to maintain proper hydration and health. The facility policy, titled Turning and Repositioning, last revised 12/6/22, states: It is our policy to implement turning and repositioning as part of our systematic approach to pressure injury prevention and management. This policy establishes responsibilities and protocols for turning and repositioning. 2. Turning and repositioning is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-02 · 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 interview, observation and record review, facility did not implement professional standards of practice to ensure that a resident does not develop pressure injuries (PIs), receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing and prevent new PIs from developing for 1 of 2 residents (R) reviewed. (R21) This is evidenced by:National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) guidance recommends repositioning all individuals with or at risk of pressure injuries on an individualized schedule, unless contraindicated. Determine repositioning frequency with consideration to the individual's level of activity and ability to independently reposition. Reposition the individual in such a way that optimal offloading of all bony prominences and maximum redistribution of pressure is achieved.R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Current diagnoses include hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease, weakness, cognitive communication deficit, type 1 diabetes mellitus, asthma, heart failure, chronic kidney…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-02 · 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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident, for 1 of 1 resident (R9). R9 had an order to check systolic blood pressure prior to administering medication, with parameters to hold the medication if systolic blood pressure was less that 110. The facility did not complete blood pressure checks as ordered. Findings include: The facility policy titled Medication Errors, read in part. Staff will follow best practices to prevent medication errors: a. Clarify an order that is incomplete. b. Ensure that orders are fully understood before administering medications.On 10/01/25, Surveyor reviewed R9's record and noted an order for: 01/02/25, metolazone 5 mg tablet every other day for possible heart failure exacerbation, hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) <110. Surveyor was unable to find evidence of BPs prior to medication administration. Surveyor requested this from Director of Nursing (DON) B. On 10/01/25 at 9:21 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 · D2025-08-21 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide privacy during wound care for one of three residents (R) 3, reviewed for wound care out of a total sample of 6 residents. This failure had the potential for R3 to experience embarrassment or feeling exposed during treatment. Findings include: Review of R3's undated Face Sheet located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R3's admission Evaluation - V3, located under the Assessments tab in the EMR and dated 08/14/25 at 6:44 PM, indicated R3 was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. Review of R3's Physician Orders, located under the Orders tab in the EMR, indicated an order dated 08/19/25 for Left Buttock wound, Sacral redness, and Bilateral Buttock redness: Cleanse with NS [Normal Saline], pat dry, and apply Periguard Ointment every day and evening shift for wound healing and as needed for wound healing. During the wound care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-21 · 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 observations, record review, interviews, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines during a wound care observation for two of two residents resident (R), R2 and R3, observed for wound care and failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions during a dressing change for R3. This failure had the potential for R2 and R3 to be exposed to infections. Findings include:Review of the CDC webpage titled, Clinical Safety: Hand Hygiene for Healthcare Workers, updated 02/27/24, revealed to change gloves and clean hands when moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site. Review of the CDC webpage titled, Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs), updated 04/02/24 revealed EBP are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure activities of daily living and activities for dependent residents were completed per standards of practice and resident care plans for 2 out of 3 sampled residents (R) (R1 and R2). -R1 did not receive weekly showers. -R2 did not receive restorative care or weekly showers per standards of practice and the resident's care plan. This is evidenced by: Example 1 R1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that include post shoulder surgery, weakness, fragile X, fibromyalgia, morbid obesity, hemiplegia, and asthma. R1's brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score was 13/15 indicating intact cognition. Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicates R1 is understood and understands. R1 is dependent on staff for showering, and received max assist with transfers, toileting, and bed mobility. On 07/07/25, Surveyor reviewed R1's record. In review of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documentation for weekly showers, 2 out of 6 showers were 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 · Fcited before2023-08-17 · 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, store and distribute foods in a safe and sanitary manner. The facility practices had the potential to affect all 48 residents. Initial tour of the facility kitchen found the floors in the kitchen, storage areas and dish room with food particles and built-up dirt present on the floors, the steamer and ovens with built up dried matter on the sides and bottom and on the industrial can opener mounted to the food preparation counter. Food temperatures were not taken at point of service in the rehabilitation kitchenette to ensure proper holding temperatures prior to serving food to residents. The food temperature logs were not complete. Dietary Aide (DA) D explained improper sanitization of thermometer procedures when temperatures are taken. This is evidenced by: Example 1 On 8/15/23 at 8:40 AM, Surveyor conducted an initial tour of the facility kitchen with Account Manager (AM) F who manages the dietary operations and has been on staff a few weeks. Surveyor noted the dry storage area floor, the kitchen floor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-17 · 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, interview and record review, staff did not perform hand hygiene to prevent the spread of infection when warranted while providing care to 1 of 4 residents (R) R28 observed for cares. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C did not perform hand hygiene when warranted when providing incontinence care for R28. This is evidenced by: Example 1 Surveyor requested and reviewed the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene which is dated 11/02/22. The policy in part reads: 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 within the facility. Hand Hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the conditions listed in, but not limited to, the attached hand hygiene table. ~After handling contaminated objects ~Before applying and after removing personal protective equipment, including gloves ~After handling items potentially contaminated with .body fluids On 8/16/23 at 10:43 AM, Surveyor observed CNA C assist R28 with care in the resdident's room. CNA C…
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 · Ccited before2024-08-15 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to dispose of garbage properly on 3 of 3 days of survey. Garbage was observed setting on the ground outside of the dumpsters and dumpster lids were observed to be open on 3 of 3 days of survey. This is evidenced by: Facility policy and procedure entitled Environment, last revised 9/2017, states in part: All trash will be contained in covered, leak-proof containers that prevent cross contamination. All trash will be properly disposed of in external receptacles (dumpsters) and the surrounding area will be free of debris. On 08/13/24 at 9:15 AM, Surveyor observed the 2 dumpsters; the lids were wide open and 2 bags of garbage were observed on the ground beside the dumpsters. On 08/14/24 at 8:22 AM, Surveyor observed a man inside the dumpster rearranging garbage bags. The man picked up 2 bags of garbage off the ground and placed them into the recyclable dumpster. He appeared to be attempting to rearrange the bags, so the lids could possibly close. On 08/14/24 at 4:00 PM, Surveyor observed the garbage dumpster's lids on both…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE — 59 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 58 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 58; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSHF OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/24/2017 |
| MILLS, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 20% | since 06/29/2017 |
| BAUMANN, TROY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/29/2017 |
| HOEHN, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/29/2017 |
| NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $362K 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 525369. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-02, 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.