Epiphany Assisted Living Llc.
Epiphany Assisted Living Llc is Grade C, ranked in the top 50% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Dec 2025.

A large home, reviewed on public record.
Ranked against 142 Minnesota facilities.
ALF memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better. Source: Minnesota Dept. of Health · Health Regulation Division.
FACILITY WATCH · BETA
Epiphany Assisted Living Llc has 1 citation on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
1 deficiencie on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
1 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Epiphany Assisted Living Llc's record and state requirements.
Minnesota Department of Health records show 3 complaints on file through December 5, 2025 — were any of those complaints substantiated by MDH, and can you walk us through the corrective actions the community took in response?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The most recent MDH inspection on December 5, 2025 resulted in 0 deficiencies — can you share the written inspection report and explain how the facility prepares for unannounced surveys under Minnesota Statute chapter 144G?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
This facility holds an Assisted Living with Dementia Care license — what written policies does the community maintain to describe dementia-specific programming, and can families review those documents during the tour?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every MDH visit, verbatim.
4 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-12-05Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine licensing inspection of Epiphany Assisted Living on January 14, 2026 identified one violation related to fire protection and physical environment, resulting in a $500 fine at Level 2 severity. The facility must document the actions taken to correct this violation and may request reconsideration of the correction order within 15 calendar days of receipt.
Full inspector notes
correction orders and document the actions taken to comply in the facility's records. The Department reserves the right to return to the facility at any time should the Department receive a complaint or deem it necessary to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of residents in your care. STATE CORRECTIO NORDERS The enclosed State Form documents the state correction orders. MDH documents state licensing correction orders using federal software. Tag numbers are assigned to Minnesota state statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The assigned tag number appears in the far left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The state statute number and the corresponding text of the state statute out of compliance are listed in the "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" column. This column also includes the findings that are in violation of the state statute after the statement, "This MN Requirement is not met as evidenced by . . ." IMPOSITION OF FINES In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 4, fines and enforcement actions may be imposed based on the level and scope of the violations and may be imposed immediately with no opportunity to correct the violation first as follows: Level 1: no fines or enforcement; Level 2: a fine of $500 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20; Level 3: a fine of $1,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20; An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISE D09/13/2021 Epiphany Assisted Living LLC January 14, 2026 Page 2 Level 4: a fine of $3,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20; Level 5: a fine of $5,000 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20. Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, the following fines are assessed pursuant to this survey: St - 0 - 0775 - 144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment - $500.00 The refor e, in accor danc e wit h Minn. Sta t. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.999 9, the total amount you are assessed is $500.00. You will be invoiced approximately 30 days after receipt of this notice, subject to appeal . DOCUMENTATIO ONF ACTION TO COMPLY In accorda nce with Min n. Stat. § 144G.30, Sub d. 5(c), th e lic ens ee mus t docum ent ac tions taken t o comply with the correction orders within the time period outlined on the state form; however, plans of correction are not required to be submitted for approval. The correction order documentation should include the following: Identify how the area( s) of noncompliance was corrected related to the · resident( s)/ employee( s) identified in the correction order. Identify how the area( s) of noncompliance was corrected for all of the provider’s · resident( s)/ employees that may be affected by the noncompliance. Identify what changes to your systems and practices were made to ensure compliance with · the specific statute( s). CORRECTIO NORDER RECONSIDERATIO PNROCESS In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.32, Subd. 2, you may challenge the correction order( s) issued, including the level and scope, and any fine assessed through the correction order reconsideration process. The request for reconsideration must be in writing and received by MDH within 15 calendar days of the correction order receipt date. To submit a reconsideration request, please visit: https: / / forms. web. health. state. mn.us/ form/ HRDAppealsForm REQUESTIN GA HEARING Alternatively, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 5(d), an assisted living provider that has been assessed a fine under this subdivision has a right to a reconsideration or a hearing under this section and chapter 14. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 144G.20, Subd. 14 and Subd. 18, a request for a hearing must be in writing and received by the Department of Health within 15 business days of the correction order receipt date. The request must contain a brief and plain statement describing each matter or issue contested and any new information you believe constitutes a defense or mitigating factor. Epiphany Assisted Living LLC January 14, 2026 Page 3 To submit a hearing request, please visit: https: / / forms. web. health. state. mn. us/ form/ HRDAppealsForm To appe al fi nes via re cons iderat ion , pl ease follow the procedu r e outl ined abo ve. Plea se no te tha t you may re que st a rec onside rati on or a hearing, bu t not bot h. If you wish to cont est ta gs with out fine s in a reconsideration and tags with the fines at a hearing, please submit two separate appeals forms at the website listed above. INFORMA LCONFERENCE In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.20, Subd. 20, the Commissioner of Health is authorized to hold a conference to exchange information, clarify issues, or resolve issues. The Department of Health staff would like to schedule a conference call with Epiphany Assisted Living .Please contact Kelly Thorson at 320-223-7336 on or before January 17, 2026 to schedule the conference call. The MDH Health Regulation Division (HRD )values your feedback about your experience during the survey and/ or investigation process. Please fill out this anonymous provider feedback questionnaire at your conv enien ce at thi s link: https: / / forms. office.com/ g/ Bm5uQEpHVa. Your inpu t is import ant to us and will enable MDH to improve its processes and communication with providers. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire, please contact Susan Winkelmann at susan. winkelmann@state. mn.us or call 651-201-5952. You are encouraged to retain this document for your records. It is your responsibility to share the information contained in the letter and state form with your organization’s Governing Body. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Kelly Thorson, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: KellyT. horson@state. mn.us Telephone: 320-223-7336 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 CLN PRINTED: 01/ 14/ 2026 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/ SUPPLIER/ CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 30688 12/ 05/ 2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 10955 HANSON BOULEVARD NW EPIPHANY ASSISTED LIVING LLC COON RAPIDS, MN 55433 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER' S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS- REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 000 Initial Comments 0 000 *****ATTENTION***** Minnesota Department of Health is documenting the State Correction Orders ASSISTED LIVING PROVIDER LICENSING using federal software. Tag numbers have CORRECTION ORDER( S) been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living License In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section Providers. The assigned tag number 144G. 08 to 144G. 95, these correction orders are appears in the far-left column entitled "ID issued pursuant to a survey. Prefix Tag." The state Statute number and the corresponding text of the state Statute Determination of whether violations are corrected out of compliance is listed in the requires compliance with all requirements "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" provided at the Statute number indicated below. column. This column also includes the When Minnesota Statute contains several items, findings which are in violation of the state failure to comply with any of the items will be requirement after the statement, "This considered lack of compliance. Minnesota requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the surveyors' INITIAL COMMENTS: findings is the Time Period for Correction. SL30688016- 0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On December 1, 2025, through December 5, STATES, "PROVIDER' S PLAN OF 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health CORRECTION. " THIS APPLIES TO conducted a full survey at the above provider and FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS the following correction orders are issued. At the WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. time of the survey, there were, sixty-eight (68) residents receiving services under the Assisted THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO Living Facility with Dementia Care license. SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES. THE LETTER IN THE LEFT COLUMN IS USED FOR TRACKING PURPOSES AND REFLECTS THE SCOPE AND LEVEL ISSUED PURSUANT TO 144G. 31 SUBDIVISION 1-3. 0 100 144G.
2025-11-26Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that facility staff entered a coumadin order into the medication record and then discontinued it on the same day without administering the medication to the resident, resulting in the resident missing three weeks of this blood-thinner medication; the resident's condition subsequently changed, the resident was hospitalized with a stroke, and died approximately two weeks later. The investigation substantiated neglect and determined the facility was responsible for the maltreatment. MDH found that medication reconciliation did not occur when the pharmacy delivered the medication, and the resident was not assessed after the medication error was discovered.
“MDH substantiated maltreatment or licensing violation finding”
Full inspector notes
Finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility Nature of Investigation: The Minnesota Department of Health investigated an allegation of maltreatment, in accordance with the Minnesota Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, Minn. Stat. 626.557, and to evaluate compliance with applicable licensing standards for the provider type. Initial Investigation Allegation(s): The facility neglected the resident when the resident did not receive his coumadin (a medication that thins the blood), for multiple weeks resulting in a hospitalization and death. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. Facility staff entered the resident’s coumadin on the resident’s electronic medication administration record (EMAR), then discontinued the coumadin order. The coumadin was sent to the facility by the pharmacy but was discontinued by facility staff and not administered to the resident. The resident missed three weeks of coumadin then had a change in condition, was hospitalized and died. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff and nursing staff. The investigator contacted the resident’s hospital physician. The investigation included review of the resident record(s), death record, hospital records, pharmacy records, facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, personnel files, staff schedules, related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed the facility physical plant, medication administration, treatment administration and care being provided with staff interactions. The resident resided in an assisted living facility. The resident’s diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, history of pneumonia and stroke. The resident’s service plan included assistance with medication management and provider ordered laboratory tests. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident was orient to person, place, time and situation. The assessment indicated the resident received assistance with coumadin therapy, including as needed provider ordered laboratory tests, weekly International Normalized Ratio, (INR) monitoring blood draw that indicated how quickly the blood clots) and medication , (a management. Medical records indicated facility nurse #1 obtained the resident’s INR results and updated the resident’s provider, who prescribed a new coumadin order. Facility nurse #1 faxed the new coumadin order to the pharmacy. Facility nurse #1 discontinued the order while attempting to update the EMAR. The pharmacy obtained the resident’s new coumadin order, dispensed, and delivered the medication the same day it was prescribed. The medication was placed in the medication cart but not administered. Medical records indicated three weeks later, facility nurses #2 and #3 received the resident’s new INR laboratory results which were 1.1 (therapeutic range was between 2-3). After reviewing the resident’s EMAR, the nurses discovered the resident’s previous coumadin order was not listed on the document. The nurses updated the resident’s provider and family regarding the incident. The resident’s provider ordered the resident’s coumadin be restarted and a new INR laboratory test be completed in approximately 2 days. A few days after the coumadin medication was resumed an agency nurse arrived to obtain the INR blood work. The agency nurse found the resident was lethargic, disoriented, and had a fever. The agency nurse updated the facility nurses and the resident’s family. The resident was transported to the hospital. Hospital records indicated the resident was admitted with altered mental status. An exam indicated the resident had right sided weakness. The resident’s INR results obtained in the hospital was 1.2. The resident was diagnosed with a stroke and had frequent seizures requiring admission into the intensive care unit. The resident was intubated and was diagnosed with pneumonia related to the ventilator. The resident died approximately two weeks later. The resident’s death record indicated the resident died from acute ischemic stroke (occurs when blood flow to a part of the brain is blocked, usually by a blood clot, leading to brain cell damage or death). During an interview, facility nurse #1 stated she recalled receiving the resident’s INR results and updated the resident’s provider. A new order was obtained from the provider, and the order was faxed to the pharmacy. Facility nurse #1 stated she attempted to enter the order into the resident’s EMAR and discontinue the previous coumadin order. Facility nurse #1 stated she thought facility management would review the order later that day however it was not reviewed. During an interview, facility nurses #2 and #3 stated they were alerted to the incident after the resident’s new INR results were received and neither nurse could find a coumadin order on the resident’s EMAR. The resident’s coumadin order was faxed to the pharmacy and discontinued in the EMAR a few weeks prior. The resident’s family and the medical provider were updated. Facility nurse #2 and #3 stated the resident’s order for coumadin was reinstated and another INR was ordered for the following day. The resident was not assessed after the coumadin error was found. During an interview, facility management stated facility nurse #1 started the resident’s new coumadin order but then discontinued the same coumadin order on the same day. Facility nurse #1 informed facility management she did not know how the coumadin order was discontinued and did not realize what had occurred. Facility management stated when the medication was delivered there was no documentation who received the medication, and no medication reconciliation occurred. During an interview, the physician stated the resident was supposed to be on lifelong coumadin. The resident’s INR was subtherapeutic (when a person's blood is clotting faster than the desired rate for their condition) upon admission which led to the resident’s stroke, subsequent seizures, the need for a ventilator for which the resident acquired pneumonia. The cause of the cascade effect was from the stroke that was initiated by the subtherapeutic INR results. During an interview, the resident’s pharmacy obtained, dispensed and delivered the resident’s Coumadin to the facility. During an interview, a family member stated the facility staff were administering the medication ordered by the provider to the resident. A facility nurse reported the resident did not receive coumadin for several weeks. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. Substantiated: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, Subdivision 19. “Substantiated” means a preponderance of evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred. Neglect: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 17 “Neglect” means neglect by a caregiver or self-neglect. (a) "Caregiver neglect" means the failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to, food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is: (1) reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult; and (2) which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct. Vulnerable Adult interviewed: No. Deceased Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Not Applicable Action taken by facility: The facility completed a facility investigation of the incident. The facility sent the resident to the hospital after a change in condition was reported. The facility educated nursing staff on Coumadin orders and INR facility processes. Action taken by the Minnesota Department of Health: The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance. To view a copy of the Statement of Deficiencies and/or correction orders, please visit: https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/directory/provcompselect.html If you are viewing this report on the MDH website, please see the attached Statement of Deficiencies. You may also call 651-201-4200 to receive a copy via mail or email cc: The Office of Ombudsman for Long Term Care The Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Anoka County Attorney Coon Rapids City Attorney Coon Rapids Police Department PRINTED: 12/02/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ C B. WING _____________________________ 30688 11/04/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 10955 HANSON BOULEVARD NW EPIPHANY ASSISTED LIVING LLC COON RAPIDS, MN 55433 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE PREFIX PREFIX REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 000 Initial Comments 0 000 ******ATTENTION****** Assisted Living Provider 144G. ASSISTED LIVING PROVIDER CORRECTION Minnesota Department of Health is ORDER documenting the State Correction Orders using federal software. Tag numbers have In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, 144G.08 been assigned to Minnesota State to 144G.
2024-06-24Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that a resident reported being slapped by staff during a care activity, and a witness heard what sounded like a slap and the resident's accusation, but the investigation could not conclusively determine whether abuse occurred because the staff member denied it, there were no visible injuries the next day, and the resident could not recall the incident due to dementia. The Minnesota Department of Health classified the finding as inconclusive, meaning there was insufficient evidence to prove abuse did or did not happen. The facility was not cited with a violation.
Full inspector notes
Finding: Inconclusive Nature of Investigation: The Minnesota Department of Health investigated an allegation of maltreatment, in accordance with the Minnesota Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, Minn. Stat. 626.557, and to evaluate compliance with applicable licensing standards for the provider type. Initial Investigation Allegation(s): The resident was abused when the alleged perpetrator (AP), facility staff, was demanding and rough with the resident. The resident screamed, “Oww, she slapped me,” and pleaded with staff not to leave her alone with the AP. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. The resident and AP were in the resident’s room with the door closed. The resident stated the AP hit her, however, the AP denied hitting the resident. There were no witnesses to the incident and when the resident was assessed for injury’s the following day none were noted. The resident was unable to recall the incident. It could not be determined if abuse occurred. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted the resident’s family member. The investigation included review of the resident record(s), facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, personnel files, staff schedules, related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed the resident and staff in the facility. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit with diagnoses including dementia, glaucoma, and was legally blind. The resident’s individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) indicated the resident was cognitively impaired, and not able to report abuse. The IAPP instructed staff to monitor for possible signs and symptoms of abuse and follow the facilities abuse reporting process. A facility investigation indicated one evening leadership nursing staff received a report staff heard the resident scream, “Ow, she slapped me!” The resident’s door was closed, and staff entered the room to check on the resident. The witness noticed the AP in the room demanding the resident bend her knees to place them on the foot pedals. The AP stated, “We have to get ready to eat”, and the resident responded, “Not with you!” then repeated the AP had slapped her. The facility investigation identified the resident would sometimes yell out and state something hurts during transfers or cares. The facility investigation indicated the following morning when the resident was assessed for injuries there was no redness or signs of abuse noted at that time. The investigation indicated the resident had no recollection of the incident. Several staff stated the resident was a reliable reporter of abuse in the moment but due to cognitive impairment would not be able to recall the incident. Staff stated it was not unusual for the resident to yell out during cares and say staff were hurting her but indicated the resident had never made statements that staff had slapped her before. When interviewed the staff witness stated she heard the resident yell out and a hand to skin slap sound loud enough she could hear it through a closed door. Then, she heard the resident say “Ow, you slapped me!” The witness stated when the door opened the AP was the only staff in the room with the resident. The witness indicated the AP appeared hurried, rushed, aggressive, and showed a lack of patience toward the resident which made the witness feel uncomfortable as the AP proceeded to get the resident ready to go to dinner. The witness stated the AP told the resident “We have to go to dinner”, and the resident responded, “not with you!” then pleaded with the witness not to leave her alone with the AP. The witness stated the AP did not deny the resident’s allegation of slapping the resident or try to redirect/comfort the resident. The witness indicated she did not look for or notice any signs of redness on the resident when the incident occurred. Nursing leadership stated when interviewed the AP stated the resident always yelled out during cares. Leadership stated the AP’s statement was concerning because the resident does not “always yell out during cares” and had never reported staff slapped her prior to the incident. Leadership stated when the resident was assessed for injuries and signs of abuse the following morning, none were noted, and the resident had no recollection of the incident. When interviewed the AP denied the allegation. The AP stated it was not unusual for the resident to yell or say staff were hurting her while providing care. The AP stated when the witness entered the room to check on the resident the resident yelled out and accused that staff of hurting her also. The resident’s family member stated staff had not reported the resident had behaviors of yelling out during cares or saying staff were hurting her. The family member stated the resident had made no reports of abusive concerns, but indicated due to the resident’s dementia she would not remember from day to day. The AP’s facility personnel records indicated she had no disciplinary action or patterns of abusive conduct concerns. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. Inconclusive: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, Subdivision 11. "Inconclusive" means there is less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur. Abuse: Minnesota Statutes section 626.5572, subdivision 2. "Abuse" means: (a) An act against a vulnerable adult that constitutes a violation of, an attempt to violate, or aiding and abetting a violation of: (1) assault in the first through fifth degrees as defined in sections 609.221 to 609.224; (2) the use of drugs to injure or facilitate crime as defined in section 609.235; (3) the solicitation, inducement, and promotion of prostitution as defined in section 609.322; and (4) criminal sexual conduct in the first through fifth degrees as defined in sections 609.342 to 609.3451. A violation includes any action that meets the elements of the crime, regardless of whether there is a criminal proceeding or conviction. (b) Conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct as defined in this section, which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to, the following: (1) hitting, slapping, kicking, pinching, biting, or corporal punishment of a vulnerable adult; (2) use of repeated or malicious oral, written, or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening; Vulnerable Adult interviewed: Yes. Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Yes he Action taken by facility: The facility removed the AP from providing care to the resident and other residents in the facility. The facility investigated the incident and reported the concern to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC). The AP is no longer employed by the facility. Action taken by the Minnesota Department of Health: No further action taken at this time. cc: The Office of Ombudsman for Long Term Care The Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities PRINTED: 06/25/2024 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ C B. WING _____________________________ 30688 05/22/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 10955 HANSON BOULEVARD NW EPIPHANY ASSISTED LIVING LLC COON RAPIDS, MN 55433 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 000 Initial Comments 0 000 On May 22, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Minnesota Department of Health is Health initiated an investigation of complaint documenting the State Correction Orders #HL306883422M/#HL306883621C. No correction using federal software. Tag numbers have orders are issued. been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The assigned tag number appears in the far-left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The state Statute number and the corresponding text of the state Statute out of compliance is listed in the "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" column. This column also includes the findings which are in violation of the state requirement after the statement, "This Minnesota requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators ' findings is the Time Period for Correction.
2023-06-04Complaint InvestigationNo findings
1 older inspection from 2023 are not shown in the free view.
1 older inspection (2023–2023) are available with a premium membership.
Other facilities in Anoka County.
Other memory care facilities in Anoka County with similar care offerings.




Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
No published reviews yet. Use the button above to share your experience.
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.