Home / Minnesota / Saint Louis Park
7900 West 28th Street, Saint Louis Park, MN 55426 · Hennepin County · (952) 920-8380
107 certified beds, about 90 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 245187 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 19, 2024, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Minnesota average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 59 health citations since September 2021, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $22,205 in the last three years; the largest was $22,205, and the latest is dated September 19, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.40 hours per resident per day, against 4.19 across Minnesota and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.77 of those hours.
39.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Minnesota average 42.2%).
CMS links it to Monarch Healthcare Management, an affiliated group of 45 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 59 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to report a change in condition to the provider and family for 1 of 3 residents (R2) when R2 had an acute episode of hypoxemia (low levels of oxygen in the blood characterized by symptoms that may include shortness of breath and bluish lips) during a combined physical and occupational therapy assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and document review, the facility failed to assess and monitor 1 of 3 residents (R2) per the provider orders on admission and failed to comprehensively assess and monitor 1 of 3 residents (R2) after a change in condition when R2 participated in therapy, his lips turned blue and had a significant decrease in oxygen saturation rate.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to sufficiently manage pain for 1 of 3 residents (R2) when R2 reported severe pain and was not provided with pain medications until more than 24 hours later.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to verify and accurately transcribe orders for 1 of 3 residents (R1) when a blood pressure medication with conflicting dose and types were prescribed for R1 and then then transcribed incorrectly. Additionally, the facility failed to timely administer prescribed pain medication for 1 of 3 residents (R2) who was admitted post-surgically after a cervical (neck) spinal fusion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a medication was available for administration for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for medication errors. This resulted in immediate jeopardy (IJ) when R1 was not administered physician prescribed anti-seizure medication which resulted in hospital intensive care unit (ICU) admission for medical management and treatment. The IJ began on 1/17/26 when the facility failed to ensure R1 received scheduled dose Lacosamide (anti-seizure medication) on 1/17/26, 1/18/26, and 1/19/2026 (six doses) and an additional dose not administered on morning of 1/20/26 this caused R1 to have 3 seizures over the span of 7 minutes resulting in hospital ICU admission where R1 remains. The administrator, the director of nursing, and the regional director of operations were notified of the IJ on 1/27/26 at 4:40 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan in a timely manner following a verbal altercation for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for abuse. This failure placed R2 at risk for psychosocial distress and potential recurrence of resident-to-resident conflict.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to support the facility-sponsored and individual activities for residents' preference to support their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 2 of 3 residents (R1 & R2) who were dependent on staff for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment and care professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for quality of care. R1 received treatments that were not ordered and R1 was simultaneously seeing an outpatient wound clinic and the facilities inhouse wound care team who both prescribed different wound care orders leading to inconsistent treatment for R1's wound including missed treatments and inaccurate assessments. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment and care professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for quality of care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions (an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resident organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident activities) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (R1). In addition, during a wound care dressing change staff failed to follow proper infection control protocol.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively and accurately re-assess, develop and implement interventions to reduce/prevent significant and continued weight loss for 1 of 3 resident (R2) reviewed for weight loss. This resulted in actual harm when R2 was hospitalized for malnutrition. Findings Include: Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) considers weight loss 'significant' if it exceeds 5 percent (%) within one month, 7.5% within three months, or 10% within six months. R2's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified an admission date of 3/13/25, indicated R2 was severely cognitively impaired and had diagnoses of cerebral palsy, depression, and enlarged prostate know as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), obstructive uropathy (blockage hindering urine flow), and Rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to attempt alternative devices before using bedrails on residents beds. The failed to accurately assess the residents for risk of entrapment by assessing residents medical diagnosis, size and weight, cognition, communication and mobility for 5 of 7 residents (R1, R2, R3, R6 and R7) reviewed for bed rails. In addition, R6 had side rails used in conjunction with an air mattress. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to attempt alternative devices before using bedrails on residents beds. The failed to accurately assess the residents for risk of entrapment by assessing residents medical diagnosis, size and weight, cognition, communication and mobility for 5 of 7 residents (R1, R2, R3, R6 and R7) reviewed for bed rails. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails as a part of the regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment for 6 of 7 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R6 and R7) reviewed. The bed manufacturer guidelines indicated to visually inspect the bed and accessories monthly and indicated to follow the FDA guidance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop a care and furnish services according to the providers orders for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed. R4 was ordered to wear compression stocking and an abdominal binder. These services were not being completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services recommended by physical therapy to maintain or improve a residents ability to carry out her own activities of daily living for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed. R4 was ordered a functional maintenance program when her physical therapy treatment period ended, and the facility did not initiate the program delaying R4's discharge goals. Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services recommended by physical therapy to maintain or improve a residents ability to carry out her own activities of daily living for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed. R4 was ordered a functional maintenance program when her physical therapy treatment period ended, and the facility did not initiate the program delaying R4's discharge goals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing services to meet the residents needs for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2 and R4) reviewed when staff were unavailable to provide necessary care and services according to assessed needs leading to long wait times for incontinence cares.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights, or another means to request assistance were accessible for 3 of 3 (R2, R5, and R7) residents who were dependent on staff for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of potential abuse was reported timely to the administrator and to the State agency (SA) in accordance with established policies and procedures for 1 of 1 residents (R1) who was reviewed for an allegation of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of potential verbal/ physical abuse was thoroughly investigated and protection was provided when the alleged perpetrator was allowed to continue to work with residents after the allegation was identified for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for an allegation of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified timely of elevated blood sugars and a change condition for 1 of 2 residents (R2) reviewed for change of condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was appropriately managed based on professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for intravenous (IV) medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow infection control protocols to ensure proper handwashing was implemented for 2 of 4 residents (R1, R2); failed to ensure proper enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were utilized appropriately for 2 of 2 residents (R1, R3); and failed to disinfect vital sign machine after use for 1 of 1 residents (R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure discharge summary requirements were met for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for discharge. R1 discharged from the facility against medical advice (AMA), R1's medical record did not include a recapitulation of resident's stay (a concise summary of the resident's stay and course of treatment in the facility) and a final summary of the resident's status at discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor and notify the physician following a change in condition for one of three residents, (R1) who had multiple episodes of vomiting that began on [DATE] and continued through [DATE] when R1 died. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) for R1. The IJ began on [DATE] when R1's had a change in condition was not monitored, nor was the physician notified of R1's change in condition that started on the evening of [DATE] and continued through the morning of [DATE] when R1 passed away. The IJ was identified on [DATE]. The administrator and the director of nursing were notified of the immediate jeopardy at 10:47 a.m. on [DATE]. The immediate jeopardy was removed on [DATE] and the deficient practice was corrected on [DATE], prior to the start of the survey and was therefore past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to report allegations of neglect to the state agency immediately, but not later than two hours for one of one resident (R1) reviewed when R1's change in condition was not assessed, the physician was not notified, and R1's change in condition was not monitored by licensed nurses. R1 began vomiting on [DATE] and died in the facility on [DATE].
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one of three residents (R1) reviewed when R1 had a history of gastrointestinal bleeds that was not identified on her care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure personal protection equipment (PPE) was used when sorting dirty laundry. This had the potential to impact all 82 residents who reside in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident privacy and dignity 2 of 3 residents (R46, R11) reviewed for dignity. R46 R46's admission (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R46 had moderate cognitive impairment and required substantial and/or maximal assistance with most activities of daily living (ADLs), such as hygiene, dressing, and transfers. During observation on 9/18/24 at 7:30 a.m., R46 had their call light on. At 7:32 a.m., the social services designee (SS)-A knocked on R46's door and stated they would let them [the staff] know as they walked out of R46's room. At 7:34 a.m., SS-A stated loudly down the hall to nursing assistant (NA)-A R46 needed a check and change. During interview on 9/18/24 at 8:48 a.m., NA-A stated SS-A always does that when questioned about SS-A's statement in the hall. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a self-administration of medications (SAM) assessment was completed to allow 1 of 1 resident (R30) to safely administer their own non-oral medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident use of shared toilet for 1 of 1 resident (R62) reviewed for accommodation of needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure an enteral feeding pump, tube feeding pole, and supporting legs were cleaned and in sanitary condition for 1 of 2 residents (R11) reviewed for tube feeding. Furthermore, the facility failed to keep the building clean for 1 of 1 bathroom with an unclean exhaust fan and 1 of 1 room with an unclean wall vent and ceiling tiles. Also, the facility failed to keep furniture in good condition for 1 of 2 residents (R30) who had an extended table from a dresser in their room.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive and individualized care plan was developed for 1 of 1 resident (R49) reviewed for constipation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and monitor non-pressure related skin conditions for 1 of 1 resident (R49) reviewed for skin concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide routine range of motion for 1 of 2 residents (R11) reviewed for range of motion (ROM). Further, the facility failed to implement a walking program for 1 of 1 resident (R62) reviewed for walking program.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the current pneumococcal vaccination was offered for 1 of 5 residents (R47) reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation of medications and treatments when residents were hospitalized for 2 of 3 (R1, R3) residents reviewed for documentation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure required information was documented and communicated to a receiving healthcare facility to ensure continuity of care when transferred to the hospital emergently for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for change in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide an opportunity to participate in care planning for 4 of 4 residents (R21, R29, R73, R56) reviewed for care conferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure resident council concerns were addressed or followed-up on in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect 12 residents who attended the resident council meetings in the previous six months.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive fall analysis to determine root cause, develop and implement resident-centric interventions, and monitor for post-fall complications following a fall for 1 of 1 residents (R73) reviewed for falls. In addition, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free from hazards to prevent falls and accidents for 4 of 4 residents (R39, R27, R31, R55) in the locked, memory care unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to notify resident representatives and/or a provider for 3 of 3 residents (R27, R39, R238) who had a change in condition and/or were involved in incidents resulting in potential or actual harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to minimize verbal resident-to-resident abuse for 1 of 1 resident (R30) reviewed who was verbally abused by another resident (R58) .
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of resident-to-resident sexual abuse for 1 of 1 residents (R39).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a level I Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level I was completed and accurate prior to admission to the facility for 1 of 1 residents (R27).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to comprehensively assess, update, and implements a care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R55) who continued to have behaviors with no new interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide timely assistance with incontinence cares for 1 of 3 residents (R25) who were dependent upon staff for incontinence cares.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess, develop, and implement meaningful and engaging activities for 2 of 2 residents (R27, R39) in the memory care unit. This had the potential to affect all 20 residents residing in the memory care unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to comprehensively assess, develop, and implement interventions for ongoing and unplanned weight gain for 1 of 1 residents (R27) who had sudden and continued weight gain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to adequately maintain bed rails to minimize the risk of entrapment for 1 of 1 resident (R73) reviewed who had bed rails attached to their bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional environment for 1 of 1 resident (R73) reviewed whose bed did not lock and bed controller did not work. R73's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired, required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. The MDS indicated he did not have any falls since the most recent assessment. R73's Medical Diagnosis list included bilateral below-the-knee leg amputations (BKA), diabetes, weakness, and lung disease. R73's Falls Care Area assessment dated [DATE], indicated he was at risk for falls due to changes in mobility and medications. A progress note dated 3/3/23, indicated R73 had an unwitnessed fall after attempting to self-transfer. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to follow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines to prevent and/or minimize the transmission of COVID-19 related to the proper utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE) including facemasks and eye protection. This had the potential to affect 22 residents who resided on the [NAME] neighborhood.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure privacy curtains, resident walls, and fall mats were clean and/or in good repair for 4 of 4 residents (R42, R33, R28, R10) reviewed for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure a self-administration of medication assessment was completed for 1 of 1 resident (R10) who was observed with medications at her bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a pattern of increased blood glucose levels for 1 of 1 resident (R10) reviewed who received insulin.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan to reflect individualized goals for 1 of 4 residents (R38) reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure assistance was provided with removing facial hair and dressing and/or bathing was for 2 of 4 residents (R58, R3) reviewed who required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). R58's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R58 had diagnoses of chronic kidney failure, heart failure, and diabetes. R58 had intact cognition, used a walker for mobility, and required set up assistance with bathing. R58's Active Order Summary dated 9/16/21, indicated R58 received dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. R58's dialysis dressing was to be removed the day after dialysis. R58's care plan dated 3/25/21, indicated R58 would continue to make daily preferences/choices which were important to him. R58's care plan lacked evidence of bathing preferences. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide assistance removing facial hair for 2 of 2 residents reviewed who were dependent upon staff for hygiene assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure daily weights were obtained for 2 of 2 residents (R85, R443) reviewed whom had daily weights ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a urinary drainage bag and catheter tubing was kept off the floor to prevent cross contamination and potential infection for 1 of 1 residents (R42) reviewed for catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the posted nurse staffing hours accurately reflected the hours worked each day. This had the potential to affect all 92 residents who resided at the facility.
13 fire safety citations on file: 8 on September 19, 2024, 4 on July 14, 2023, 1 on September 17, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 19, 2024 | Fine | $22,205 |
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) | 3.40 | 4.19 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.77 | 1.06 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.08 | 3.71 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.12 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.51 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.3% | 42.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.39 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 3.53 on weekdays and 3.08 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.58 in April to June 2025 to 3.40 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 | 3.40 | 0.77 | 3.53 | 3.08 | 0.9% | 0 of 90 | 90 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.39 | 0.79 | 3.49 | 3.13 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 88 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.51 | 0.74 | 3.66 | 3.15 | 0.5% | 0 of 92 | 89 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.58 | 0.76 | 3.71 | 3.28 | 0.6% | 0 of 91 | 91 |
| 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 | 15.3 | 18.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.8 | 20.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.7 | 5.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.0 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.6 | 23.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.3 | 14.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Villas at the Cedars's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.3% 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. 59 eligible stays.
10.2% 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. 68 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 55 eligible stays.
60.0% 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. 30 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 54 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 54 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 22 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: VILLAS AT THE CEDARS LLC. CMS links this home to Monarch Healthcare Management, a group of 45 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nij LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 16% | 01/01/2023 |
| Spartan Healthcare LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 32% | 01/01/2023 |
| Wbs Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 26% | 01/01/2023 |
| Yazoma Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 26% | 01/01/2023 |
| Halpert, Marc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 32% | 01/01/2023 |
| Jaffa, Noam | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 16% | 01/01/2023 |
| Legum, Joshua | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 26% | 01/01/2023 |
| Stern, William | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 26% | 01/01/2023 |
| Legum, Joshua | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Jaffa, Noam | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Halpert, Marc | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Stern, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Monarch Healthcare Operating Xii LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Halpert, Marc | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 |
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.