7012 Lake Road, Woodbury, MN 55125 · Washington County · (651) 735-6000
155 certified beds, about 111 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1981
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 245235 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 16, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Minnesota average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 46 health citations since September 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $185,461 in the last three years; the largest was $167,862, and the latest is dated December 2, 2025.
24.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Minnesota average 42.2%).
CMS links it to Lifespark, an affiliated group of 4 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 46 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food was served in a timely manner and at palatable temperatures for 1 of 1 residents (R102) who expressed concerns about food temperatures and palatability.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food items were labeled, dated when opened, and stored at the proper temperatures to prevent foodborne illness. In addition, the facility failed to ensure dishware was cleaned and sanitized and failed to ensure cups and pans were dry prior to stacking and storage. This had the potential to affect all residents who consumed food from the main production kitchen. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure nursing and dietary staff followed appropriate infection control practices while handling plate covers during 1 of 1 meal service. This had the potential to affect residents residing on the second floor who received room tray.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure binding arbitration agreements for 3 of 3 residents (R63, R5, R120) were clearly explained in a form and manner that they understood prior to entering into the binding arbitration agreements.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide in writing a transfer of room notice. This effected 2 of 2 residents (R1, R102) reviewed for room change. Findings Include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 was cognitively intact. Diagnoses included heart failure, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety disorder. R1 was admitted on [DATE], to a transitional care unit (TCU) bed. R1's census report undated indicated R1 move to a long-term care (LTC), semiprivate bed on 5/5/26. R1's Transfer, Discharge, Bed Hold Notification form dated 5/5/26 at 3:38 p.m., indicated R1 was transferred from TCU to LTC on 5/5/26, because TCU was for rehabilitation and R1 was staying long term. The form lacked a signature or indication R1 refused to sign. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the appropriate indications for use for 1 of 1 resident (R11) who was receiving antipsychotic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to report an allegation of physical abuse to the state agency (SA) for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse. Findings IncludeR1's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], indicated R1 was cognitively intact. Diagnoses included heart failure, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety disorder. R1's care plan dated 4/20/26, indicated R1 was a vulnerable adult and interventions included investigating any suspicions of abuse and report as necessary. R1's care plan dated 5/14/26, also indicated R1 had a history of experienced trauma and PTSD.R1's Trauma Informed Care Screening dated 6/6/26, indicated R1 had a history or experienced trauma with a goal to feel secure in the environment. In email correspondence received 7/15/26 at 1:04 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for physical and mental abuse. Findings IncludeR1's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], indicated R1 was cognitively intact. Diagnoses included heart failure, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety disorder. R1's care plan dated 4/20/26, indicated R1 was a vulnerable adult and interventions included investigating any suspicions of abuse and report as necessary. R1's care plan dated 5/14/26, also indicated R1 had a history of experienced trauma and PTSD.R1's Trauma Informed Care Screening dated 6/6/26, indicated R1 had a history or experienced trauma with a goal to feel secure in the environment. In email correspondence received 7/15/26 at 1:04 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure written bed hold/transfer notices were give upon transfer to the hospital for 2 of 2 residents (R32, R9) reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer interventions were implemented for 1 of 1 resident (R16) reviewed for pressure ulcers. R16's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated severely impaired cognition and diagnoses of chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure (CHF), and diabetes. It further indicated R16 was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living (ADL) and mobility, was at risk for and had (1) unstageable facility acquired pressure ulcer and moisture associated skin damage (MASD). R16's physicians orders dated 6/10/26, indicated R16 required pressure reducing boots on at all times, every shift for deep tissue injury (DTI) to left heel. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure perimeter mattress were assessed for safety for 2 of 2 residents (R11, R16) reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure orders were carried out for a urinary analysis and urine culture (UA/UC) in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident (R76) reviewed for urinary tract infection (UTI).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to assess and monitor a change in condition for 3 of 4 residents (R1, R2, R4) reviewed for wound care. The lack of assessment and monitoring for R1 resulted in harm for R1 when R1 appeared to be sleeping in bed but instead had a change in responsiveness and mentation, was not assessed timely for the change, and was hospitalized . The lack of thorough assessment and monitoring for R2 resulted in delay in treatment for wounds related to moisture associated skin damage (MASD). Wound care staff identified wounds on 4/28/26, but were not evaluated until 5/11/26. The wounds were open and R2 reported pain associated with the wounds. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and document review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 1 of 4 resident (R1) reviewed for compressive care plan. Additionally, based on interviews, observations, and document review, the facility failed to implement care planned interventions for 2 of 4 residents (R2, R4) reviewed for care plan implementation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and document review the facility failed to promote dignity for 1 of 4 residents (R4) when his call light was not answered timely, staff did not honor a request to don R4's protective heel boots, and did not provide a blanket to cover his body.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer (PU) preventative measures indicated on the care plan were implemented for 2 of 4 residents (R2, R4) reviewed for wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and document review the facility failed to follow orders for catheter removal and failed to ensure catheter was in place for a valid medical reason for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for catheter care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure lymphedema (swelling caused by an accumulation of protein-rich fluid in the body's tissues) care was provided as ordered for 1 of 4 residents (R1) reviewed for wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and document review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program by ensuring staff utilized proper hand hygiene and appropriate glove use during wound care treatments for 1 of 1 resident (R4) reviewed for wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to accurately transcribe a medication order correctly for Bumex (diuretic medication used to remove fluid) for 1 of 1 resident (R1) which resulted in an 18-pound (lb.) weight loss in 12 days, critical labs, vomiting and a hospitalization. In addition, the facility had two additional medication errors and failed to implement appropriate corrective actions to prevent the significant medication error for R1. The facility failure resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R1. The IJ began on 11/07/25, when R1 was ordered Bumex (diuretic) 2 milligrams (mg) by mouth (po) QD (daily) x three days. The order was transcribed as Bumex 2 mg po TID (three times daily) with no stop date indicated. As a result, R1 received (36) 2 mg doses from 11/7/25 to 11/18/25 versus the 3 doses he should have been administered. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food items were disposed of when needed and were properly stored, labeled, and dated. This had potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors who consumed food from the main kitchen,and dining refrigerators.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to implement transmission-based precautions (TBP) and infection surveillance for 1 of 1 resident (R111) who had an active order to collect a stool sample for Clostridioides difficile (C. diff).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a self administration of medications (SAM) was completed to allow residents to safely administer their own medications for 1 of 1 resident (R68) observed with a medication at the bedside. R68's Medical Diagnosis form indicated the following diagnoses: acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, severe persistent asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation, and emphysema. R68's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, and had shortness of breath with exertion when sitting at rest, and when lying flat. R68's care plan dated 4/3/25 indicated R68 could not self-administer medications and nebulizers, and the facility was to administer medications as resident was not safe to independently administer medications at this time. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure a resident's wishes for resuscitation were accurately documented in all areas the medical record for 1 of 22 residents (R87) reviewed for advanced directives. R87's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated moderately impaired cognition and diagnoses of [NAME]-Danlos Syndrome, signs and symptoms involving cognitive function and awareness, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). It further indicated R87 required supervision with activities of daily living (ADL) and was independent with mobility. R87's face sheet/banner in Point Click Care (computer system for documentation) indicated Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). R87's physician's orders indicated DNR. R87's Physician's Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) dated [DATE], indicated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and DNR. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide routine care conferences to allow for resident/ family participation and interdisciplinary review, and update, if necessary, of the care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R50) reviewed for care conferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to ensure symptoms of constipation were acted upon and assessed to determine what, if any interventions were needed to promote appropriate bowel management for 1 of 1 resident (R4).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to assess trauma history and identify potential triggers for 1 of 1 residents (R8) with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled:2Number of residents cited:2Findings include:R11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R11 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of anxiety and depression. R11's care plan revised 12/15/24, indicated R11 had a psychosocial well-being problem related to depression and anxiety. Interventions included to encourage R11 to verbalize feelings, perceptions and fears and help identify precipitating factors of stressors. R11's medical record lacked indication follow up was completed after a behavioral outburst by R105. R105's admission MDS dated [DATE], indicated R105 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances and conduct and heart failure. R105's nursing progress note dated 6/17/25 at 8:48 p.m., indicated R105 had loud and disruptive behaviors for over 4 hours. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach and accessible for 1 of 3 residents (R1), who was dependent on staff for care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP)- (an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities,) were implemented or followed for management of a non-pressure skin wound to reduce the risk of infection to others for 1 of 1 resident (R1). Further the facility failed to implement hand hygiene for 1 of 1 resident (R1) observed during incontinence care and transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to accurately assess and implement interventions to prevent hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) for 1 of 1 resident who was diabetic, had a blood sugar of 30 mg/dl (milligrams per deciliter; normal range is 80-130 mg/dl) and was unresponsive at dialysis. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy for R1 who was hospitalized with hypogylcemia. The IJ began on 3/1/25 at 5:00 p.m. when R1 was admitted to the facility with orders for insulin but lacked orders to check blood sugars. The facility did not implement standing orders or request orders to monitor R1's blood glucose levels, resulting in a severe drop in R1's blood sugar level and hospitalization. The administrator, director of nursing (DON), and regional nurse were notified of the IJ on 3/7/25 at 11:50 a.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions, including providing required supervision, which resulted in a fall for 1 of 1 residents (R68) reviewed for accidents. This resulted in actual harm when R68 required hospitalization for pain control and sustained a fractured left tibia and fibula (lower leg bones). The facility had implemented and completed corrective action prior to the start of the survey, and the deficient practice is being issued at past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to promote dignity for 6 of 6 residents (R1, R23, R28, R31, R47, R58) reviewed for resident rights when name labels were observed on the outside of clothing. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure a dignified home-like environment was provided during dining services in 1 of 2 dining rooms reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure self-administration of medications was comprehensively assessed for 1 of 1 residents (R75) with medication found at the bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive, person-centered care plan was developed and readily available to promote continuity of care for 2 of 3 residents (R61, R199) reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure bathing care was consistently provided or recorded for 1 of 2 residents (R61) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) and who was dependent on staff assistance for bathing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and, if needed, develope interventions to promote a proactive bowel management program to promote comfort and reduce the risk of complication (i.e., impaction, constipation) for 1 of 1 residents (R61); and failed to comprehensively assess and, if needed, develop or implement interventions to promote good posture and positioning while in bed for 1 of 1 resident (R26) observed who leaned significant to the side while in bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide passive range of motion and palm protector to prevent possible contracture for one of one residents (R38) reviewed for range of motion (ROM) who had limited functional movement of their hands.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure urology orders for catheterization were clarified; and failed to ensure the use of an in-dwelling Foley catheter was comprehensively assessed or care-planned to promote continuity of care for 1 of 1 resident (R20) reviewed for catheter use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure proper cleaning of a non-invasive ventilation machine to reduce the risk of complications (i.e., respiratory infection) for 1 of 1 residents (R40) observed for non-invasive ventilation machine use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to comprehensively assess past trauma and develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan with goals and interventions utilizing a trauma-informed approach including monitoring of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) for 1 of 1 (R39) residents reviewed for trauma-informed care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure consultant pharmacist recommendations were acted upon timely, and an appropriate rationale was recorded for not implementing recommendations for 1 of 5 residents (R38) reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a scheduled antifungal medication without an end date was evaluated for the appropriateness of its continued use for 1 of 5 residents (R40) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to care plan and document resident specific target behaviors for 1 of 5 residents (R38) who was prescribed scheduled antipsychotic medication. Further, the facility failed to ensure that as-needed (PRN) psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days of use or the practitioner documented both a specific order duration and the rationale for extending the PRN psychotropic order, to ensure the medications continued necessity and reduce the risk of complication for 1 of 5 residents (R69) reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure quarterly statements of resident' trust fund balances were provided for 2 of 2 residents (R13, R75) who voiced they had not received one; and for an additional 32 of 32 residents identified to have trust accounts managed by the care center.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident' trust account balances above the state-required supplemental security income (SSI) threshold (i.e., $3,000) were identified and notice provided to the resident for 3 of 3 residents (R26, R5, R45) whose balance was over the amount. This had potential to affect a total of 6 of 6 residents with excessive balances with the potential to impact their medical assistance coverage.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to report to the state agency immediately, within 2 hours, an allegations of verbal abuse for one of one (R1) residents reviewed. R1's hospital discharge paperwork dated 8/28/23, indicated R1 was discharged to the facility for supportive care following a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. A handwritten complaint from R1 written 8/31/23 indicated a facility employee had entered her room unannounced and when R1 attempted to speak with the employee, he had told her to shut up. MDS admission assessment dated [DATE] indicated R1's diagnoses included non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and the presence of bypass grafts. R1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was 12 out of 15, and indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. [...]
30 fire safety citations on file: 4 on July 16, 2026, 14 on July 24, 2025, 12 on June 27, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 2, 2025 | Fine | $167,862 |
| March 7, 2025 | Fine | $17,599 |
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) | not reported | 4.19 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | not reported | 1.06 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | not reported | 3.71 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | not reported | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | not reported | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 24.4% | 42.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 32.0% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS note on this home's staffing data: The accuracy of the staffing data for this measure could not be validated by CMS.
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 4.10 on weekdays and 3.52 on weekends, 14% 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 3.37 in April to June 2025 to 3.93 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 | 3.93 | 0.94 | 4.10 | 3.52 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 111 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.26 | 1.09 | 4.50 | 3.64 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 102 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.50 | 0.81 | 3.72 | 2.96 | 21.1% | 0 of 92 | 99 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.37 | 0.89 | 3.58 | 2.82 | 0.4% | 0 of 91 | 108 |
| 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 | 12.4 | 18.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 4.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.2 | 20.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.2 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 31.0 | 23.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.3 | 14.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Woodbury Health Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (62.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
62.1% this home
Better than 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. 231 eligible stays.
9.4% 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. 218 eligible stays.
9.6% 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. 135 eligible stays.
48.8% 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. 82 residents counted.
2.7% 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. 111 residents counted.
4.2% 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. 111 residents counted.
96.9% 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. 32 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: SENIOR CARE WOODBURY, LLC. CMS links this home to Lifespark, a group of 4 nursing homes averaging 1.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior Care Communities | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2007 | |
| Marshall, Susan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 03/01/2007 | |
| Marshall, Susan | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2007 | |
| Toulouse, Molly | Corporate director | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| King, Ryan | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Lifespark Management Services | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/30/2020 | |
| Twsl. LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2007 | |
| Karel, Mike | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| King, Ryan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Parmar, Mona | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Sounthala, Nicole | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/31/2024 | |
| Martin, Richard | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/08/2025 | |
| Senior Care Communities | Trustee of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2007 | |
| Aegis Therapies, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2009 | |
| Grape Tree Medical Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Lifespark Management Services | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/07/2025 | |
| Senior Care Communities | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2007 | |
| Shiftster LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Twsl. LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/19/2025 | |
| Karel, Mike | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| King, Ryan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Parmar, Mona | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2022 |
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.