Suite Living Senior Care of La.
Suite Living Senior Care of La is Grade C−, ranked in the bottom 49% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Oct 2024.
A medium home, reviewed on public record.
Ranked against 187 Minnesota facilities.
ALF memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better. Source: Minnesota Dept. of Health · Health Regulation Division.
FACILITY WATCH · BETA
Suite Living Senior Care of La 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 Suite Living Senior Care of La's record and state requirements.
The most recent MDH inspection on October 10, 2024 resulted in zero deficiencies — can you walk us through the documentation from that visit and explain how the community maintains its compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 144G dementia care requirements?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
One complaint was filed with MDH during the period on file — was that complaint substantiated, and can you share the facility's written response or any corrective steps that were documented internally?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
This 32-bed community holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minnesota law — can you provide families with a copy of the written dementia care program and describe how staff competency in dementia care is assessed and documented?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every MDH visit, verbatim.
2 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2024-10-10Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection of Suite Living Senior Care of Lakeville was conducted October 7–10, 2024, and found violations of Minnesota assisted living statutes; the facility was issued state correction orders but no immediate fines were assessed. The facility must document how it corrected the violations and what changes were made to prevent future noncompliance, with the timeframe for correction listed on the state form. The facility may request reconsideration of the correction orders within 15 calendar days of receiving them.
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 CORRECTION ORDERS The enclosed State Form documents the state correction orders. The Department of Health documents state correction orders using federal software. Tag numbers are assigned to Minnesota state statutes for Home Care Providers. 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 . . ." In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31 Subd. 4, MDH may assess fines based on the level and scope of the violations; h owever, no immediate fines are assessed for this survey of your facility. DOCUMENTATION OF ACTION TO COMPLY Per Minn. Stat. § 144G.30, Subd. 5(c), t he licensee must document actions taken to 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. An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: 9GJX Revise d04/20/2023 Suite Living Senior Care of Lakeville, LLC November 14, 2024 Page 2 Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected for all of the provider’s residents/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). CORRECTION ORDER RECONSIDERATION PROCESS In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.32, Subd. 2, you may challenge the correction order 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 the Department of Health within 15 calendar days of the correction order receipt date. A state correction order under Minn. Stat. § 144G.91, Subd. 8, Free from Maltreatment is associated with a maltreatment determination by the Office of Health Facility Complaints. If maltreatment is substantiated, you will receive a separate letter with the reconsideration process under Minn. Stat. § 626.557. To submit a reconsideration request, please visit: https://forms.web.health.state.mn.us/form/HRDAppealsForm 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 convenience at this link: h ttps://forms.office.com/g/Bm5uQEpHVa. Your input is important 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, Jodi Johnson, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Jodi.Johnson@state.mn.us Telephone: 507-344-2730 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 HHH PRINTED: 11/14/2024 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 39344 10/10/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 20949 KEOKUK AVENUE SUITE LIVING SENIOR CARE OF LAKEVILLE L LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 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 ASSISTED LIVING PROVIDER LICENSING Minnesota Department of Health is CORRECTION ORDER(S) documenting the State Correction Orders using federal software. Tag numbers have In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section been assigned to Minnesota State 144G.08 to 144G.95, these correction orders are Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The issued pursuant to a survey. assigned tag number appears in the far left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The Determination of whether violations are corrected state Statute number and the requires compliance with all requirements corresponding text of the state Statute out provided at the Statute number indicated below. of compliance is listed in the "Summary When Minnesota Statute contains several items, Statement of Deficiencies" column. This failure to comply with any of the items will be column also includes the findings which considered lack of compliance. are in violation of the state requirement after the statement, "This Minnesota INITIAL COMMENTS: requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators ' findings is the SL39344015-0 Time Period for Correction. On October 7, 2024, through October 10, 2024, PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH full survey at the above provider. At the time of STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF the survey, there were 26 residents; 26 receiving CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO services under the provisional Assisted Living FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS Facility with Dementia Care license. WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO 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. 0 480 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum 0 480 SS=F requirements LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 97NH11 If continuation sheet 1 of 28 PRINTED: 11/14/2024 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 39344 10/10/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 20949 KEOKUK AVENUE SUITE LIVING SENIOR CARE OF LAKEVILLE L LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 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) 0 480 Continued From page 1 0 480 (13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and This MN Requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the residents). The findings include: Please refer to the included document titled, Food and Beverage Establishment Inspection Report dated October 7, 2024, for the specific Minnesota Food code deficiencies. TIME PERIOD FOR CORRECTION: Twenty-one (21) days 0 630 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with 0 630 SS=D requirements for reporting ma (b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. The plan shall contain an individualized review or assessment of the STATE FORM 6899 97NH11 If continuation sheet 2 of 28 PRINTED: 11/14/2024 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B.
2024-03-11Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
Minnesota Department of Health investigated a complaint of financial exploitation at this memory care facility and determined that a staff member stole morphine tablets from a resident's personal medication supply for her own use. Video footage showed the staff member altering the facility's narcotic logbook and replacing the resident's morphine medication card with another medication card to conceal the theft, and the staff member was subsequently charged with theft by police. The resident, who had Alzheimer's disease and could not report abuse, was assessed as vulnerable to exploitation.
“MDH substantiated maltreatment or licensing violation finding”
Full inspector notes
Finding: Substantiated, individual 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 alleged perpetrator (AP) financially exploited the resident when the AP stole morphine (narcotic pain medication) from the resident’s personal supply. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the AP took the residents morphine for her own personal use. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted law enforcement and family. The investigation included review of the resident records, death record, pharmacy records, the facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, personnel files, staff schedules, law enforcement reports, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed staff interactions with residents in the facility. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit. The resident’s diagnoses included Alzheimer’s disease and failure to thrive. The resident’s service plan included assistance with medication management, and activities of daily living. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident was not oriented to person, place, or time; was vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, and the resident would not be able to report abuse, neglect, or exploitation. The resident’s medication administration record (MAR) indicated the resident was prescribed as-needed (PRN) morphine for pain management. At a later point, an order for scheduled morphine was prescribed to supplement the residents pain medication regimen. The pharmacy delivered the card of scheduled morphine to the facility. The facility’s internal investigation indicated staff notified the on-call nurse that a card of the resident’s morphine tablets was missing. A staff member said on the evening shift the previous day, pharmacy delivered a card of morphine which the staff numbered it, documented it in the narcotic logbook, and placed the morphine in the lockbox of the medication cart. She later completed the narcotic medication count with the oncoming overnight staff and the count was accurate at that time. The same staff member came in the next day for another evening shift and completed the narcotic medication count with the outgoing day staff member. The evening staff member asked about the morphine she had logged in the evening before, and the day staff said she was not aware morphine had been delivered for the resident. The staff members noticed the narcotic logbook had been partially whited out, written over with information for haloperidol (haloperidol is not a narcotic medication and would not need to be counted with the narcotic medications), and the medication card for haloperidol had been placed in the narcotic medication lockbox. With the medication card for morphine replaced with the card of haloperidol, and the narcotic logbook page whited out and written over with haloperidol, the day staff member had not known the morphine was missing when she completed the morning medication count with the overnight staff member. The facility internal investigation indicated facility leadership viewed camera footage, and the overnight staff member was removed from the schedule pending results of the investigation. Three video clips were provided by the facility. Review of the first video clip indicated the AP standing at medication cart. An open book was set in front of the AP (identified by staff as the narcotic logbook). The AP had a blanket over her head. The AP was hunched over the narcotic logbook and appeared to be writing in it. The AP then stood up, and something could be seen in her hands. She appeared to screw something together with both hands and then placed the item in her pocket. The AP removed her right hand from her pocket and took a pen from the top of the medication cart. The AP then reached into the medication cart with her right hand and closed the narcotic logbook with her left hand. The AP took the narcotic logbook in her left hand, searched in the medication cart with her right hand and then withdrew a medication card. The AP then walked around to the desk behind the medication cart and began to sit down. In the second video clip, the AP was sitting at the desk with the open narcotic logbook in front of her. The AP had the medication card in her right hand. The blanket over her head somewhat obscured her actions. The AP transferred the medication card into her left hand and started to write something in the narcotic logbook with a pen. The final video clip cut ahead. The narcotic logbook was closed. The AP stood up with the narcotic logbook in her hands. The medication card the AP had brought around to the desk could not be seen. The AP stood up and walked back around to the medication cart. The AP was holding the narcotic logbook in her right hand, but she did not have the medication card she had removed from the medication cart. The AP placed the narcotic logbook in the medication cart. The AP dug around the medication cart before picking up another medication card and reading it. The video then ended. Review of the police report indicated the AP was charged with 609.52.2(a)(1) Theft-Take/Use/Transfer Movable Prop-No Consent, a misdemeanor. The property taken was identified as 30 tablets of 5mg morphine sulfate. Review of the AP’s background check history indicated the AP had been disqualified from providing direct contact services or having access to people who receive services due to three convictions of Misdemeanor Theft-Take/Use/Transfer Movable Prop-No Consent in three different counties over three years. When interviewed, a nurse said she received a report that an entire medication card of morphine was missing. Staff informed her it appeared the narcotic logbook had been altered. It appeared morphine had been whited out and haloperidol had been written over it. Haloperidol is not a narcotic medication and would not need to be logged and counted. Staff reported that medication counts for the other narcotic medications in the medication cart were accurate. Staff reviewed camera footage. The nurse said the overnight staff member appeared in the frame, wearing a blanket over her head. The nurse observed the AP opening the medication card, and the narcotic drawer. The nurse said the morphine came from their pharmacy, and the bubble packs are orange. She could tell the color of the card was orange, which would have been the morphine. The nurse said she could see the AP doing something in the narcotic book but could not tell where the card of morphine went. The pharmacy confirmed the morphine had been delivered. The day staff member who counted narcotic medications with the overnight staff did not notice the haloperidol was not a narcotic, so the discrepancy was not caught during the morning medication count. During the afternoon count, the afternoon staff member, who had accepted the morphine the evening before, noticed the morphine was missing and her entry in the narcotic logbook had been whited out and written over. As part of the internal investigation, the nurse contacted the AP and asked the AP why she had placed haloperidol in the narcotic lockbox, and why she documented it on a page in the narcotic logbook that already had a medication written on it. The AP said she did not do that, and then said she could not recall. The nurse said the AP’s story changed multiple times. When interviewed, the afternoon staff member said she had accepted a delivery of the resident’s morphine, put it in the narcotic box in the medication cart and logged it into the narcotic logbook. The afternoon staff member said she completed the narcotic medication count with the oncoming night staff member. At that time the count was correct, and all narcotic medications were accounted for. She left for the night and returned the next afternoon. She initiated the narcotic medication count with the outgoing day staff member and noticed the page in the narcotic logbook in which she had documented the morphine delivery had been whited out and written over with haloperidol.
Other facilities in Dakota County.
Other memory care facilities in Dakota 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.