W4266 County Highway X, Owen, WI 54460 · Clark County · (715) 229-2172
172 certified beds, about 138 residents a day · Government - County · Medicare and Medicaid since 1987
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 525403 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 18, 2025, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Wisconsin average is 9.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since July 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.73 hours per resident per day, against 4.21 across Wisconsin and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.23 of those hours.
53.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Wisconsin average 46.9%).
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and review of the facility reported incidents (FRI) the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by other residents for four residents (R3, R5, R10, and R2) of eight residents reviewed for abuse out of a total sample of 23 residents. The facility's failure to protect residents from abuse placed residents at continued risk of harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff members involved in allegations of abuse were removed from resident care while the investigation was ongoing for three of nine abuse allegations involving Resident (R) R5, R14, and R16. In addition, the facility failed to ensure that a complete and thorough investigation was conducted for investigations of alleged abuse for two of nine investigations involving R4 and R16.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety with the potential to affect all 144 residents.-Staff did not demonstrate appropriate hand hygiene while serving a meal.-Food was uncovered and exposed while transported from one unit to another via the hallway.-Towel meant to cover food was observed in the food.-Plastic pitcher observed sitting in a bowl of food.-Hot food items not kept hot.-Drinks for meals service not kept cold on cart.-Multiple beverage containers not labeled and/or covered.-Freezers on units not monitored for temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not provide a sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections with the potential to affect all 144 residents.-Staff allowed to work 24 hours after gastrointestinal symptoms reported.-Mechanical lifts not sanitized between use by separate residents.-1 resident (R30) was not placed on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for an indwelling catheter.-R7's catheter bag was hung on her garbage can.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure accommodation of resident toileting needs and preferences for 1 resident (R19) of 29 residents reviewed and sampled. The facility did not allow use of a bathroom in R19's room for meeting toileting needs. The facility required R19 to locate staff to unlock a bathroom down the hall from R19's room when needing to meet toileting needs. The facility did not reassess interventions in R19's care plan for meeting toileting needs safely and update care plan in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure 1 of 29 residents (R89) reviewed, reserved the right to make choices about an aspect of their life that was significant to them. The facility implemented a care plan for R89's request to go to the therapy room and complete independent exercises daily, Monday through Friday. The facility did not follow R89's care plan and did not assist R89 to therapy. The facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, read in part, Residents have a comprehensive set of rights aimed at ensuring dignity, autonomy, and quality of life. These rights include the right to be treated with respect, participate in care planning, and voice grievances without fear of retaliation. Residents have the right to be treated with consideration and respect for their individuality, including their personal preferences. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained free from accidental hazards with supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 resident (R96) of 2 residents reviewed for accidents in a sample of 29 residents. The facility did not have a position change bed alarm device placed on R96's bed, following care planning interventions to alert staff to any potential hazards of R96 attempting to get self out of bed, thus preventing an avoidable accident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that a resident who requires dialysis receives such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 2 sampled residents (R9 and R17) reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to provide ongoing assessments of R9 and R17's condition and monitoring for complications before and after dialysis treatments received at a certified dialysis facility. This is evidenced by:R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure staff received training regarding abuse, neglect, and exploitation and what activities constitute abuse, procedures for reporting and dementia management and resident abuse prevention. This has to potential to affect all 134 residents. This is evidenced by:The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment & Misappropriation of resident property policy & procedure, which is not dated, states in part: .Staff and volunteers will receive education about resident mistreatment, neglect, and abuse, including injuries of unknown source, exploitation and misappropriation of property upon first employment and annually after that. Surveyor reviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) G, CNA F, and Registered Nurse (RN) E's education for abuse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not implement policy and procedure to protect residents following a known incident of abuse, report and investigate allegations of abuse, and complete required training of staff. This has the potential to affect all the facility's 134 residents. The facility did not implement its abuse policy and procedures by the following:Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) G was instructed to physically restrain Resident (R) 1 while CNA F administered medication. CNA G did not immediately report to Director of Nursing (DON) or Nursing Home Administrator. Accused staff continued to work in the facility until the incident was reported a week later. The facility did not submit to the state agency a facility reported incident for 2 abuse allegations. The facility did not report the abuse of R1 to law enforcement. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did notify the resident representative of a change in condition for 1 of 3 residents (R) reviewed (R1). On 08/12/25, the facility was notified of an allegation of abuse regarding R1. R1's legal guardian was not notified of incident or subsequent investigation findings. This is evidenced by:Facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment & Misappropriation of Resident Property Policy & Procedure, with no implemented or reviewed date, states in part: G. Reporting and Response: The Administrator or designee will inform the resident or resident's representative of the report of an incident and that in investigation is being conducted. The Administrator or designee, will inform the resident and/or responsible party the results of the investigation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident is free from physical restraints that are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for restraints (R1). On 08/05/25 and 08/06/25, facility staff used physical restraint to give R1 oral medications. This is evidenced by:Facility policy titled, Restraints, Use of (Physical), with a most recent revised date of 01/09/14, states in part: Policy: The use of any type of physical restraint will be based on evaluation of risk versus benefit of use following a comprehensive assessment and identification of needs and medical symptoms. A physical restraint will be used as a last resort or on a temporary trial following failure of alternative interventions. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility did not implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of physical abuse in accordance with section 1150B of the Act when an allegation of physical abuse was not reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours to the administrator and local law enforcement in accordance with state law through established procedures for 2 of 3 residents (R) reviewed (R1 and R3). On 08/08/25, the facility was notified by local law enforcement that an allegation was reported of abuse regarding R3. The facility did not investigate or report this allegation to the State Agency (SA). On 08/12/25, the facility was made aware of an allegation of abuse regarding R1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure an allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 (R3) residents reviewed. On 08/08/25, an allegation of abuse was reported to local law enforcement regarding R3. The facility did not investigate this allegation. This is evidenced by:Facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment & Misappropriation of Resident Property Policy & Procedure, with no implemented or reviewed date, states in part: E. Investigation: It is the policy of this facility that reports of abuse (mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, exploitation and misappropriate of property) are promptly and thoroughly investigated. Procedure: The investigation is the process used to try to determine what happened. The designated facility personnel will begin the investigation immediately. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure prescription medications were administered by qualified staff for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed. R1's medications were administered by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). This is evidenced by:Facility policy titled, Medication Administration & Treatment by Certified Nursing Assistants, with no date, states in part: Policy: This facility will comply with all state and federal guidelines related to medication administration in order to ensure the safety of resident. Nursing assistants may NOT administer any medications or perform any treatments with the following exception as delegated by the nurse: 1. Nursing assistants can apply prescription and nonprescription topical creams and ointments to UNBROKEN skin during daily cares. 2. Nursing assistants can provide oral care with mouthwashes. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided timely updates of concerns voiced at resident council meetings for three residents (Residents (R) 8, R9 and R10) of 13 sampled residents. Failing to update residents of measures taken to address their concerns, demonstrated their lack of knowledge of ensuring resident council was used for what it was intended, an opportunity for residents to voice their concerns and have adequate follow-up.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to protect residents from resident-to-resident verbal and physical abuse for three (Residents (R)3, R7, R4) of 13 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to create an environment where other residents had the potential to be abused.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation when receiving abuse allegations from residents for two residents (Residents (R)6 and R5) out of 13 sampled residents. Failing to interview other residents to complete a thorough investigation, had the potential to increase a resident's risk of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of 13 sample residents (Resident (R)1) was provided with care and services in accordance with the care plan to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. R1 expressed the desire to kill herself; a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) failed to implement the care plan interventions and did not notify the nurse on duty or the Nurse Care Coordinator (NCC) of R1's suicidal statements. R1 was alone in her room and was not assessed by a nurse to determine what measures might be needed as directed in the care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two out of two sampled residents at risk for falls and reviewed for alarm use (Resident (R)1 and R4) were not consistently provided with non-alarm interventions prior to the implementation of multiple alarms or following the implementation of alarms, that were implemented to prevent falls/accidents. Five separate alarms were utilized for R1 and four separate alarms were utilized for R4, without a reduction plan in place. A gait belt was not consistently used and the care plan was not followed regarding notifying the nurse if R1 refused the gait belt. This created the potential for residents to experience emotional distress due to the noise level and potential for falls due to being startled by the sound of the alarms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a resident's right to privacy was maintained when receiving mail for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (R2). R2's mail packages were opened by facility staff without R2's permission.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) received a performance review every 12 months for three of five CNAs reviewed. (CNA H, CNA I, CNA J). The facility failed to have a system in place to ensure that performance reviews were being done for any of the facility CNAs. This had the potential to affect all 147 residents residing in the facility. This is evidenced by: On 08/15/24, a random sample of CNAs employed by the facility was selected for review for the completion of annual performance reviews. The facility provided the following information: CNA H has been employed at the facility since 06/14/22. An annual performance review could not be located. CNA I has been employed at the facility since 07/13/17. An annual performance review could not be located. CNA J has been employed at the facility since 08/15/22. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not report an incident of potential misconduct to the state agency immediately upon learning of the incident and did not submit the 5-day investigation within 5 days as required. The facility practice had the potential to affect 1 of 2 residents (R) reviewed for abuse (R78). This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled Abuse, neglect, mistreatment & misappropriation of resident property policy and procedure, indicates the definition of abuse is the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. According to Appendix PP of the State Operation manual Willful is defined at §483.5 in the definition of abuse, and means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure 2 residents (R), R56 and R127, of 7 sampled residents reviewed for hospitalizations received the proper notice of transfer, reason for transfer and location of transfer. R56 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. R56 was own decision maker and was not provided a written notice of the transfer. R127 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. R127 was not provided with written notice of the transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility did not implement the comprehensive, person-centered care plan for 1 of 29 sampled residents (R) (R12), reviewed with comprehensive, person-centered care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 6 residents (R) R34 and R100.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Facility staff were walking trays with uncovered food past other residents' rooms. This has the opportunity to effect 3 of 3 residents (R117, R296, R295).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure vaccinations were reviewed, offered, or administered for 1 of 5 sampled residents (R) for immunizations. R23.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received care and treatment based on professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed who are at risk for the development of pressure injuries. R4 was noted on 6/01/24 with a new stage 2 pressure injury to her coccyx. R4 pressure injury was noted as healed on 7/09/24. R4's repositioning schedule is not consistent with current standards of practice to prevent redevelopment of pressure injury. This is evidenced by: Surveyor requested and received the facility policy titled Nursing-Pressure Injury Policy and Treatment Procedures dated as most recently revised on 8/01/23. The Policy in part read: Policy: To prevent the development of avoidable pressure injuries .the facility provides care and services which: ~Promote the prevention of pressure Injury development. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150B of the Act when an allegation of sexual abuse, was not reported immediately but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and law enforcement where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with state law for 1 of 1 abuse allegatoins reviewed for resident (R) 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure controlled drugs were stored in separately locked, permanently affixed compartments. Observation of a controlled medication stored in the unlocked refrigerator located in the medication room. The facility's controlled substances shift count log was missing documentation of shift counts to accurately detect missing doses of the controlled substances.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of the residents in a timely manner for 1 of 28 residents (R122) resulting in delayed results used to determine treatment for a urinary tract infection (UTI.) R122 displayed signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection on 04/14/23. Urinalysis (UA) and urine culture and sensitivity (C&S) were ordered by the provider, but the facility staff did not enter the order for the C&S. This caused a delay in getting the lab culture performed, delaying treatment for R122. The UA results were positive for infection. R122 was hospitalized with diagnoses of acute metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, dehydration, and anemia requiring intravenous fluids (IV) and antibiotics. This is evidenced by: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not consult with the resident's physician when a stage 2 pressure injury developed for 1 of 8 residents reviewed (R26). R26's physician was not notified when development of a stage 2 pressure injury was identified. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled, Pressure Injury Policy & Treatment Procedures, states in part Consult MD by telephone within 24 hours if a new injury is discovered that is a stage 2 or greater or there is deep tissue injury of heels or other areas to obtain treatment orders. R26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation, right leg below the knee amputation, diabetes mellitus type 2, cancer, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, and complications of amputation stump. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice based on a comprehensive assessment for 1 of 8 residents (R) (R78) reviewed for a toe lesion. The facility did not complete a thorough assessment, notify the physician, address the care plan, and initiate treatment and interventions for R78 with a toe lesion. This is evidenced by: R78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include, in part, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, stroke with left sided paralysis, gout, long term anticoagulant, history of blood clots in lungs and legs, congestive heart failure and edema. On 07/24/23 at 10:29 a.m., Surveyor was informed by Registered Nurse (RN) G that R78 has a pressure ulcer on the left great toe. [...]
12 fire safety citations on file: 3 on December 18, 2025, 1 on January 27, 2025, 4 on August 15, 2024, 4 on July 26, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Wisconsin | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.73 | 4.21 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.23 | 0.99 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.16 | 3.77 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.11 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.38 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 53.2% | 46.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 36.1% | 39.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.44 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.95 on weekdays and 4.16 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 30.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.28 in April to June 2025 to 4.73 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.73 | 1.23 | 4.95 | 4.16 | 30.3% | 0 of 90 | 138 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.74 | 1.26 | 4.92 | 4.26 | 28.5% | 0 of 92 | 138 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.30 | 0.88 | 3.48 | 2.84 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 137 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.28 | 0.92 | 3.48 | 2.77 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 144 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Wisconsin, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.19 | 0.95 | 4.36 | 3.74 | 8.8% | 0.3% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.70 | $19.03 to $22.75 | 28,370 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.65 | $28.67 to $36.06 | 7,390 |
| Registered nurses | $45.93 | $39.39 to $49.33 | 68,060 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Wisconsin | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.9 | 16.1 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.7 | 18.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.6 | 5.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 37.0 | 15.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.8 | 23.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.4 | 15.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Clark County Rehabilitation & Living Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (34.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
34.9% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Wisconsin: 52 better, 26 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 70 eligible stays.
10.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Wisconsin: 0 better, 6 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 102 eligible stays.
9.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Wisconsin: 0 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 72 eligible stays.
41.9% this home
Median of homes: Wisconsin54.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 43 residents counted.
4.1% this home
Median of homes: Wisconsin0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 49 residents counted.
6.0% this home
Median of homes: Wisconsin2.2% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 49 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Wisconsin100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 14 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: CLARK COUNTY.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clark County | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/01/1966 |
| Schmitz, Jane | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 02/01/2003 | |
| Schmitz, Jane | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2003 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Wisconsin. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.