100 Glen Oaks Drive, New London, MN 56273 · Kandiyohi County · (320) 354-6057
52 certified beds, about 40 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1986
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 245360 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 10, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Minnesota average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 45 health citations since September 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.23 hours per resident per day, against 4.19 across Minnesota and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.71 of those hours.
80.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Minnesota average 42.2%).
CMS links it to Campbell Street Services, an affiliated group of 24 nursing homes.
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 45 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control surveillance program to identify, track, and analyze potential infections, including signs and symptoms of infections that did not result in antibiotic treatment, which had the potential to affect all 40 residents who resided in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was properly utilized during care for 1 of 1 resident (R2) reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medications were managed appropriately, including failure to complete monitoring for potential adverse effects related to antipsychotic medication use, and failure to ensure a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication order included a required stop date/duration, for 2 of 5 residents (R6 and R26) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written information regarding bed hold and return rights when a resident was transferred to the hospital for 1 of 1 resident (R6) reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included individualized interventions for the use of a seat belt while seated in a wheelchair for 1 of 1 resident (R4) reviewed for comprehensive care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised for 1 of 1 resident (R28) reviewed for elopement.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a restorative device was implemented and monitored to maintain a resident's highest practicable level of function when staff failed to ensure a right hand splint used for contracture management had a current order, and failed to document application attempts or refusals of the splint for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed for range of motion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to ensure dialysis-related care needs were coordinated and implemented, including failure to clarify and implement fluid restriction interventions, for a resident at risk for fluid overload for 1 of 1 resident (R11) reviewed for dialysis services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure specialized rehabilitative services were provided as ordered when the facility failed to ensure a physician's order for occupational therapy (OT) evaluation and treatment was completed timely for 1 of 1 resident (R4) reviewed for specialized rehabilitative services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement an effective antibiotic stewardship program when the facility failed to complete antibiotic time-outs to evaluate the effectiveness and continued need for antibiotic therapy for 2 of 2 residents (R5 and R23) reviewed for antibiotic use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to follow manufacturer's safety guidelines for operating a wheelchair lift for 1 of 1 resident (R1). The facilities failures resulted in actual harm when R1 fell to the ground and sustained a head laceration that required transfer to the hospital emergency department for treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview the facility failed to ensure 4 of 4 (R1, R5, R6 and R7) residents were treated with dignity and respect when care was provided to them by nursing assistant (NA)-PFindings include:Review of facility grievances identified a grievance dated 9/5/25, against NA-P made by R1, filled out by the director of nursing (DON). The grievance stated while DON was checking in on R1, R1 reported a nursing assistant for doing cares too fast. R1 identified NA-P. R1 further stated NA-P needed to slow down and I don't want her to help if that was even possible. DON reassured R1 she would speak to NA-P and R1 changed the topic. R1's significant Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified no cognition deficits. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed and protect residents after 2 of 2 allegations which included rushed and harsh cares in addition to physical abuse were reported by unknown residents which effected (R1, R4, R6, and R7) who reported on going inappropriate behavior and treatment by nursing assistant (NA)-P.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure performance evaluations for 4 of 4 nursing assistants (NA-P, NA-D, NA-S, and NA-L) were provided within the past 12 months.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse timely to the State Agency for 1 of 1 resident (R1) who reported staff to resident physical abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan that identified necessary policies and procedures describing how the facility will identify and correct quality deficiencies. This had the potential to affect all 29 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the quality assurance (QA) team developed, and revised, a quality improvement program to correct infection control concerns identified through tracking and trending and the infection control process as presented by the director of nursing (DON) during routine QAPI meetings. This had the potential to affect all 28 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to have a current, ongoing system of infection control (IC) surveillance to identify potential outbreaks of infectious disease, analyze data, and track infections through to resolution or identify the need to alter treatment. The facility also failed to ensure employee illnesses were tracked to identify when staff last worked and the criteria for when they would be allowed to return to work. The facility also failed to ensure staff appropriately wore a gown (personal protective equipment (PPE)) and/or bagged soiled linen during transport. This had the potential to affect all 29 residents in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to appropriately disinfect 1 of 1 resident's (R7) glucometer prior to returning it to the medication cart
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the infection preventionist had the appropriate time allotted to have oversight of the facility infection control program and was deemed competent in providing that oversight. This had the potential to affect all 29 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure hazardous chemicals were appropriately secured in 1 of 2 unlocked soiled utility rooms located in hall A. This had the potential to affect 16 of 29 residents residing in that hall.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physicians orders and manufacturers guidelines for 2 of 7 (R24 and R30) residents observed to receive medications. A total of seven (7) errors out of 26 errors were identified, resulting in a 26.9% (percent) facility error rate.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to have an antibiotic stewardship program to identify appropriate antibiotic use for 10 of 10 sampled residents (R1, R100, R18, R30, R18, R23, R15, R16, R5, and R101).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to provide complete information upon transfer to the receiving facility for 1 of 2 residents (R18) reviewed for hospitalization and discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided for 2 of 5 residents (R20 and R26)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure the hospice plan of care had been integrated with the facility care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R)17 to delineate services provided between the facility and hospice.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy consultant recommendations were followed up on in a timely manner for 1 of 5 residents (R13) reviewed for pharmacy recommendations
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure prescribed medications were labeled with current physician-ordered administration instructions to reduce the risk of administration error for 1 of 6 residents (R24) observed to receive medication during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to assure cleanliness and monitoring of temps, and undated foods in 1 of 2 refrigerators in dining rooms, and 5 of 5 residents'(R7, R11, R13, R16, and R29) personal refrigerators located in resident rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 residents (R3, R8, R11, R13 and R19) reviewed for immunizations were offered and/or provided the pneumococcal vaccine series as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to help reduce the risk of associated infection(s).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives for emergency care and treatment were accurately reflected in all areas of the resident's medical record to ensure residents wishes would be implemented correctly in case of an emergency for 1 of 17 residents (R15) reviewed for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) to 1 of 3 residents (R94) reviewed whose Medicare A coverage ended and then remained in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to complete neurological assessments following falls for 2 of 3 residents (R15 and R21) who had unwitnessed falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to monitor orthostatic blood pressures with the use of an antipsychotic medication for 1 of 3 resident (R12) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to investigate and respond to a Hoyer lift incident before placing the Hoyer lift back into care service for 1 of 2 (R2) residents. Additionally, the facility failed to have a system to perform regular maintenance on resident ceiling lift and failed to respond to voiced concerns by nursing staff related to ceiling lift malfunction and safety related to care planned two person Hoyer lift for 1 of 2 (R1) resident viewed for accidents. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation for R2 and R1. The IJ began on 7/30/23 at 8:22 a.m., when a Hoyer lift being used to transfer R2 would not stop and a different Hoyer lift had to be used to complete the transfer. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications to prevent blood clotting were administered, and associated blood testing was performed, in accordance with physician orders for 1 of 1 residents (R3) reviewed who was at increased risk for recurrent stroke, clots, and/or decreased blood supply to tissues/organs causing a shortage of oxygen, after an ordered blood test was not performed resulting in missed subsequent anticoagulation orders and anticoagulation therapy for a 14 day period. [...]
Inspectors wroteDuring a complaint survey exited on 9/21/23, the state survey agency cited deficiencies in the areas of safe functional sanitary/comfortable environment and sufficient nursing staff. While the facility was in substantial compliance on 4/27/23, the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program committee was unable to sustain compliance as evidence by the following repeated deficiencies:
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to meet assessed needs for 5 of 5 residents (R8, R1, R29, R5 and R23) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs); quality of care for 1 of 1 (R35) residents reviewed for nursing assessement; 9 of 9 residents (R7, R10, R11, R15, R16, R17, R18, R22 and R25) reviewed for supervision in a memory care unit; RN coverage; and as expressed by Resident Council, Staff, and 2 family members (FM-D and FM-E) who had concerns about the lack of sufficient nursing staff at the nursing home.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to take immediate action to prevent further potential violations, immediately report alleged violations, ensure written grievance documentation decisions to included; dates, grievance summary, investigation summary, statements, findings, action taken, conclusion, and communication by facility for 1 of 1 resident (R7) who was alleged to have not received staff care for an extended period of time and filed a grievance with facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of neglect was reported immediately, within two hours, to the State Agency (SA) for 1 of 1 resident (R7) who was alleged to have not received staff care for an extended period of time.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of neglect for 1 of 1 residents (R7) who was alleged to have not received staff care for an extended period of time.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for 1 of 1 residents (R8) and bathing as care planned for 4 of 4 residents (R1, R29, R5 and R23) who were dependent upon staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to assess 1 of 1 resident (R35) for change of condition upon family request.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to assess, develop and implement a person centered dementia care treatment plan for 1 of 2 residents (R10) reviewed who had behaviors related to dementia and multiple resident to resident abuse incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure an antiparkinson medication was administered in accordance with physician orders for 1 of 1 residents (R5) who was provided Carbidopa-Levodopa (assists to relieve Parkinson's disease symptoms) outside of ordered parameters during a medication pass observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to fix damaged tile, leaking shower, broken tub in Maple Lane (the only tub that was working in the entire facility). The facility received a citation for this on 3/23/23, and the citation still remains un-fixed. This had the potential to affect all 34 residents who resided in the facility who potentially would use the Maple Lane shower/tub room.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) was on duty a minimum of 8 consecutive hours a day for a weekend when there was no RN scheduled.
29 fire safety citations on file: 5 on June 10, 2026, 10 on April 24, 2025, 14 on March 6, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 12, 2025 | Payment Denial | 38 days from September 12, 2025 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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 | Minnesota | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.23 | 4.19 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.71 | 1.06 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.87 | 3.71 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.28 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.24 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 80.5% | 42.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 71.4% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.22 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 3.37 on weekdays and 2.87 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.65 in April to June 2025 to 3.23 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 | 3.23 | 0.71 | 3.37 | 2.87 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 40 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.94 | 0.79 | 4.11 | 3.50 | 0.8% | 0 of 92 | 38 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.51 | 0.56 | 3.67 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 36 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.65 | 0.68 | 3.78 | 3.33 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 29 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Minnesota, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.19 | 1.05 | 4.38 | 3.73 | 5.2% | 0.8% 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.44 | $19.39 to $23.72 | 29,120 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.65 | $28.83 to $34.26 | 12,840 |
| Registered nurses | $48.80 | $42.76 to $55.17 | 70,110 |
| 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 | Minnesota | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.7 | 18.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.1 | 4.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.8 | 20.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.1 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Glenoaks Senior Living Campus's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Minnesota: 66 better, 14 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. 38 eligible stays.
9.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Minnesota: 0 better, 0 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. 40 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Minnesota: 2 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. 20 eligible stays.
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: Minnesota57.8% · 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. 10 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: Minnesota0.0% · 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. 16 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: Minnesota2.0% · 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. 16 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: Minnesota98.5% · 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. 5 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: OPCO NEW LONDON, MN, LLC. CMS links this home to Campbell Street Services, a group of 24 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holdco New London, Mn, LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Chitai Investment, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Holdco Tabletop, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Investco Tabletop, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Techcare Corp | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Realco New London, Mn, LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Campbell Street Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Chitai Investment, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Holdco New London, Mn, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Holdco Tabletop, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Investco Tabletop, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Managerco New London, Mn, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Techcare Corp | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Curcio, Dominic | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Davis, Ryan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Dole, Isaac | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Lako Quinn, Angela | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/10/2025 | |
| Olson, Melissa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/14/2020 | |
| Campbell Street Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/13/2025 | |
| Chitai Investment, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Holdco New London, Mn, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Holdco Tabletop, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Investco Tabletop, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Managerco New London, Mn, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/24/2025 | |
| Realco New London, Mn, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Techcare Corp | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Curcio, Dominic | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Davis, Ryan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Dole, Isaac | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Lako Quinn, Angela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/10/2025 | |
| Olson, Melissa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/14/2020 |
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 Minnesota. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.