Home / Minnesota / West Saint Paul
2000 Oakdale Avenue, West Saint Paul, MN 55118 · Dakota County · (651) 554-9558
210 certified beds, about 173 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1974
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 245189 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 12, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Minnesota average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 43 health citations since September 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $41,555 in the last three years; the largest was $41,555, and the latest is dated November 30, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.27 hours per resident per day, against 4.19 across Minnesota and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.02 of those hours.
CMS links it to Akiko Ike, an affiliated group of 6 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 43 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to treat a wound when first discovered for one of one resident (R1) when the facility staff identified a wound on 3/16/26, applied a dressing, and then notified the provider and initiated treatment on 3/23/26.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records that are accurately documented for five of six residents (R1, R2, R3, R5, and R6) when their weekly bath audits did not indicate wounds that they were being treated for.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to electronically submit direct care staffing information (including agency and contract staff) per day, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The had the ability to impact all 171 residents residing at the care facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to notify the attending physician of a change in condition for 1 of 1 resident (R181) reviewed for discharge process.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to notify the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of facility-initiated transfers to an acute care facility on an emergent basis, and failed to ensure a written notice of bed hold was provided and documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) for 2 of 2 residents (R10, R17) reviewed for hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded with the potential for inaccurate federal reimbursement and resident care planning for 3 of 5 residents (R5, R8, and R25) reviewed for MDS accuracy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented for 1 of 1 resident (R13) reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to revise the care plan to include a comprehensive pain management plan for 2 of 3 residents (R6, R42) reviewed with a history of pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was reassessed and failed to implement new interventions to prevent skin breakdown after developing a stage III pressure injury while a resident at the facility for 1 of 2 residents (R123) reviewed for pressure injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to provide assessments and routine dental services to 2 of 2 residents (R87, R152) reviewed for dental care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn to prevent the spread of infection for 1 of 1 residents (R9) observed for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), (an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities). Facility also failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed for 1 of 2 residents (R73) reviewed for transmission-based precautions (TBP). Findings Include: Review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance dated 4/1/24, Implementation of PPE Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs) indicated Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring gown and glove use for EBP included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and document review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse. In addition, the facility failed to protect 1 of 3 residents (R1) while the investigation was conducted.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure proper enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), glove use, and hand hygiene was performed during incontinence care for 1 of 3 (R1) residents reviewed for incontinence care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to assess and, if able, implement interventions to ensure privacy was maintained during provision of wound care for 1 of 1 resident (R108) reviewed who expressed being claustrophobic and not wanting their doorway closed to public view. In addition, the facility failed to ensure resident' identifiable personal care information was kept secured and out of public view when stored on 1 of 1 mobile medication carts. This had potential to affect 1 of 1 residents and 14 residents (R53, R21, R74, F85, R82, R65, R7, R38, R103, R147, R154, R116, R102 and R128) of the second floor whose information was listed on an exposed care sheet.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care-planning process (i.e., meeting) was implemented to ensure continuity of care and promote participation in care-planning for 1 of 2 residents (R222) reviewed for participation in care-planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed in a timely and/or comprehensive manner to facilitate accurate evaluation of resident' conditions for 2 of 3 residents (R50, R108) reviewed for MDS accuracy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and document review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed and maintained to facilitate person-centered care for 2 of 2 (R142, R139) residents reviewed for care planning. R142 R142's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R142 was cognitively intact, had no behaviors, did not refuse cares, needed set-up for oral hygiene and eating, and required maximal assistance with mobility and all activities of daily living (ADL). The MDS also indicated R142 had no pressure ulcers. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure routine personal hygiene cares (i.e., nail care) was completed to reduce the risk of complication (i.e., scratches, infection) for 1 of 3 residents (R47) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) and whom was dependent on staff for their nail care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively reassess and, if needed or able, develop interventions to ensure activities-of-interest were advertised, offered and/or provided for 1 of 2 residents (R222) reviewed for activities and whom resided on the short-term unit (i.e., TCU).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to comprehensively assess, care plan, and implement interventions to prevent recurrent pressure ulcers for 2 of 2 resident (R39 and R142) who had a history of pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure bladder and bowel incontinence was comprehensively assessed and interventions developed to promote continence for 2 of 2 resident (R142, R139) reviewed for incontinence cares.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an antibiotic without an end date was monitored and evaluated for the appropriateness of its continued use for 1 of 1 residents (R107) reviewed for antibiotic administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an order for laboratory services was followed through and completed for 1 of 1 resident (R145) reviewed for laboratory services who had Clostridium difficile (C. diff; bacteria which can cause diarrhea, abdominal pain and cramping, fever, nausea, and dehydration.)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide the ordered drink consistency for 1 of 1 residents (R82) reviewed for dining.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to follow infection control standards of practice for the cleaning of hard surfaces in the resident room for 1 of 1 residents (R39) on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) reviewed for infection control practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess a resident, reevaluate interventions, or make changes to a care plan after a fall for one of three residents (R1) reviewed for falls when R1 had a previous fall with a history of letting go of the EZ stand lift grab bars. R1's recent fall resulted in fractures of her neck and back.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a a resident was treated in a dignified manner when he received a haircut from a nursing assistant (NA)-B without permission for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide the opportunity to participate in the care planning process, be included in the decisions about care, treatment and/or interventions in the required quarterly time frame for 1 of 3 resident (R3) reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess fall risk and implement appropriate fall interventions to decrease the risk for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R2) with falls. This resulted in harm for R1 who sustained two serious head injuries, was transferred to the hospital, and later died as a result of his injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a non-English speaking resident was provided with appropriate interpretive services for 1 of 3 residents (R1). In addition, the facility failed to reevaluate the effectiveness of the services offered, allowing them to be fully informed about their health status in an emergent situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation regarding a fall for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans including a toileting plan of care, a pressure sore plan of care, and a skin integrity plan of care for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R4, R5) reviewed for comprehensive care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess impaired skin integrity and initiate and evaluate appropriate interventions for 1 of 1 residents (R5) reviewed for non-pressure related skin injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to perform comprehensive skin assessments and provide interventions for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment for 2 of 3 residents (R4, R1) reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a community-use available glucometer was properly cleaned and disinfected between patient' use for 1 of 1 resident (R107) observed to have their blood glucose checked with the device. This had potential to affect 12 of 12 residents identified to reside on the 200 East Unit and have diabetes mellitus. In addition, the facility failed to ensure medical supplies with potential for blood-borne cross contamination were appropriately stored away from patient living areas for 1 of 1 resident (R44); and failed to ensure posted transmission-based precautions were consistently implemented to reduce to risk of infectious spread for 1 of 1 resident (R18) identified to be on such precautions. This had potential to affect 25 of 25 residents identified to reside on the same unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident' responsible parties were notified in a timely manner with abnormal lab values and corresponding medical treatment being implemented for 1 of 2 residents (R173); and with the development of a skin ulcer which required medical care and treatment for 1 of 2 residents (R49) reviewed for notification of change.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a significant change in status assessment (SCSA) was completed within required timeframe to help facilitate timely person-centered careplanning for 1 of 2 residents (R144) reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS) accuracy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan, including with resident-specific interventions, to meet the known and identified behavioral expressions and needs for 1 of 1 resident (R78) reviewed with cognitive impairment who, at times, refused personal care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure routine bathing was offered or provided to promote good hygiene for 1 of 5 residents (R78) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) and who was dependent on staff for their cares.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for 2 or 2 residents (R73, R83) reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were care planned, attempted, and recorded before the administration of as-needed (PRN) psychotropic medication to reduce the risk of complication for 1 of 1 residents (R38) reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure recommended pneumococcal vaccinations, as outlined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), were offered and provided in a timely manner for 2 of 5 residents (R18, R140) reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteThe facility failed to thoroughly investigate a resident's ability to consent to consensual sexual activities for 2 of 2 residents (R3 and R4) reviewed for an allegation of abuse when the residents had impaired cognition, impaired communication, and required extensive assistance for all their activities of daily living (ADLS.)
8 fire safety citations on file: 1 on March 12, 2026, 1 on January 9, 2025, 6 on November 30, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 30, 2023 | Fine | $41,555 |
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) | 4.27 | 4.19 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.02 | 1.06 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.81 | 3.71 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.32 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.93 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 42.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.24 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 4.46 on weekdays and 3.81 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.34 in April to June 2025 to 4.27 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 | 4.27 | 1.02 | 4.46 | 3.81 | 0.2% | 0 of 90 | 173 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.26 | 0.90 | 4.45 | 3.79 | 4.5% | 0 of 92 | 171 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.34 | 1.04 | 4.53 | 3.86 | 7.2% | 0 of 91 | 166 |
| 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.
| 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 | 16.7 | 18.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 4.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.1 | 20.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 5.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.0 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.5 | 23.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.8 | 14.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Southview Acres Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (43.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.6% 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. 120 eligible stays.
11.6% 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. 127 eligible stays.
7.1% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 64 eligible stays.
63.0% this home
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. 54 residents counted.
4.5% this home
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. 67 residents counted.
1.3% this home
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. 66 residents counted.
97.4% this home
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. 39 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: SOUTHVIEW OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Akiko Ike, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 3.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bogey Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/25/2019 |
| Ike, Akiko | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/25/2019 | |
| Katz, Abe | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/10/2025 | |
| Bartlett, Allyson | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/09/2024 | |
| Feyder, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/24/2017 | |
| Folston, Nicole | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/23/2024 | |
| Hoiland, Christa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2017 | |
| Ike, Akiko | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/25/2019 | |
| Ingvalsen, Melissa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/25/2024 | |
| Katz, Abe | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/10/2025 | |
| Lewis, Rhonda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/20/2016 | |
| Litke, Rose | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/18/2022 | |
| Shahum, Gregory | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Wigren, Shelby | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/23/2024 | |
| Akasa South Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/23/2019 | |
| Asiv Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/25/2019 | |
| Beachfront Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/25/2019 | |
| Birdie Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/25/2019 | |
| David M Fistel Sv LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/23/2019 | |
| Fairway Wsp Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/25/2019 | |
| Bartlett, Allyson | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/09/2024 | |
| Feyder, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/24/2017 | |
| Folston, Nicole | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/23/2024 | |
| Hoiland, Christa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2017 | |
| Ike, Akiko | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/25/2019 | |
| Ingvalsen, Melissa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/25/2024 | |
| Katz, Abe | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/12/2018 | |
| Katz, Toba | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/12/2018 | |
| Lewis, Rhonda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/20/2016 | |
| Litke, Rose | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/18/2022 | |
| Ratner, Eran | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/25/2019 | |
| Shahum, Gregory | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Wigren, Shelby | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/23/2024 |
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.