The Encore at Maplewood.
The Encore at Maplewood is Grade C, ranked in the top 48% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Dec 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
The Encore at Maplewood 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 The Encore at Maplewood's record and state requirements.
The facility holds a Minnesota Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minn. Stat. ch. 144G — can you walk us through the written dementia care program on file, and explain how staff training for memory care differs from general assisted living training?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
MDH records show one complaint was filed against the facility — can you describe the nature of that complaint, whether it was substantiated, and what corrective actions the facility took in response?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The most recent MDH inspection was conducted on December 4, 2024, with zero deficiencies cited — can you provide a copy of that inspection report and explain how the facility prepares for unannounced state surveys?
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.
2024-12-04Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A standard licensing inspection was conducted at this facility on December 2-4, 2024, and the Minnesota Department of Health issued correction orders for violations of state statutes; no immediate fines were assessed. The facility is required to document in its records how it corrected each area of noncompliance and what system changes were made to prevent future violations. The facility has the right to request reconsideration of the correction orders within 15 calendar days if it disagrees with the findings.
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. 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 . . ." 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 of your facility. DOCUMENTATION OF ACTION TO COMPLY In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.30, Subd. 5(c), the 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: An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISED 09/13/2021 The Encore at Maplewood January 16, 2025 Page 2 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). CORRECTION ORDER RECONSIDERATION PROCESS 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 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, Jess Schoenecker, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Jess.Schoenecker@state.mn.us Telephone: 651-201-3789 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 HHH PRINTED: 01/16/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 30614 12/04/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 2300 HAZELWOOD STREET THE ENCORE AT MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 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 been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities with In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section Dementia Care. 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 evaluators ' INITIAL COMMENTS: findings is the Time Period for Correction. Project # SL30614016 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF On December 2, 2024, through December 4, THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF conducted a survey at the above provider, and CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO the following correction orders are issued. At the FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS time of the survey, there were forty-one (41) WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. residents receiving services under the provider's Assisted Living with Dementia Care license. 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 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum 0 480 SS=F requirements; required food services LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 6T0811 If continuation sheet 1 of 41 PRINTED: 01/16/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 30614 12/04/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 2300 HAZELWOOD STREET THE ENCORE AT MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 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 (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. (b) For an assisted living facility with a licensed capacity of ten or fewer residents: (1) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0033, item A, the facility may share a certified food protection manager (CFPM) with one other facility located within a 60-mile radius and under common management provided the CFPM is present at each facility frequently enough to effectively administer, manage, and supervise each facility's food service operation; (2) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0545, item A, kick plates that are not removable or cannot be rotated open are allowed unless the facility has been issued repeated correction orders for violations of Minnesota Rules, part 4626.1565 or 4626.1570; (3) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0685, item A, the facility is not required to provide integral drainboards, utensil racks, or tables large enough to accommodate soiled and clean items that may accumulate during hours of operation provided soiled items do not contaminate clean items, surfaces, or food, and clean equipment and dishes are air dried in a manner that prevents contamination before storage; (4) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.1070, item A, the facility is not required to install a dedicated handwashing sink in its existing kitchen provided it designates one well of a two-compartment sink for use only as a handwashing sink; (5) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, parts 4626.1325, 4626.1335, and 4626.1360, item A, existing floor, wall, and ceiling finishes are STATE FORM 6899 6T0811 If continuation sheet 2 of 41 PRINTED: 01/16/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 30614 12/04/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 2300 HAZELWOOD STREET THE ENCORE AT MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 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 2 0 480 allowed provided the facility keeps them clean and in good condition; (6) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.
2024-10-08Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that the facility neglected a resident with dementia and bacterial pneumonia by failing to implement systems to track the resident's hospital discharge, resulting in antibiotics not being started until five days after the resident returned from the hospital, and by failing to notify nursing staff or the resident's doctor when the resident refused medications or was hospitalized. The facility's process requires new medications to be started within 24 hours, and the primary care provider stated that ensuring medication administration for pneumonia was important and that the resident could have required re-hospitalization. The Minnesota Department of Health substantiated the neglect finding and determined the facility was responsible for the maltreatment.
“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 they failed to provide medication after the resident was hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The facility failed to have a system in place to ensure licensed staff were aware of the resident’s return from the hospital. As a result, the resident’s antibiotic, used to treat bacterial pneumonia, was not started until five days after the resident’s discharge from the hospital. When initiated and although the resident had a history of refusing to take medications, facility staff failed to have a system in place to notify licensed staff when the resident refused his antibiotic. In addition, facility staff failed to notify the resident’s primary care provider of the resident’s hospital admission and new diagnoses. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator interviewed the resident and contacted the resident’s power of attorney. The investigation included review of the resident records, hospital records, staff schedules, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed staff and resident interactions. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit. The resident’s diagnoses included dementia and bacterial pneumonia. The resident’s service plan included assistance with medication administration. The resident cognition was moderately impaired. The resident’s record indicated one day the resident complained of chest pain and coughed up a small amount of blood. Facility staff arranged for the resident to be evaluated at a hospital. The resident’s hospital record indicated the resident was diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia, started on two antibiotics, and was discharged back to the facility two days later. The resident’s record indicated the nurse was not aware the resident returned to the facility from the hospital for two additional days. At that time, the nurse was not able to find the resident’s antibiotics to dispense them to the resident. Three days after the nurse was aware the resident was at the facility, the resident’s medication administration record indicated the antibiotics were started for pneumonia. The record indicated the resident refused to take any of his antibiotic medications. The resident’s record lacked evidence the resident’s primary care provider was updated on the resident’s hospitalization and pneumonia. In addition, the record lacked evidence the facility nurse and/or primary care provider was updated when the resident refused to take the antibiotics to treat the pneumonia. Approximately three weeks later, the primary care provider notes indicated the resident was seen at the facility for a routine visit. The resident continued to have chest congestion and had crackles (fluid inside lungs or are not inflating correctly) in left lung. The primary care provider ordered a chest x-ray that indicated the resident had pneumonia and a new round of antibiotic was ordered. During an interview, the nurse stated the resident was sent to the hospital one day and returned to the facility two days later. The nurse stated the resident was at the facility for two days before staff made the nurse aware of the resident’s return. The nurse stated the hospital paperwork indicated the resident was sent back to the facility with antibiotics for pneumonia. The nurse stated she could not find the antibiotic therefore the nurse ordered the medications. The nurse stated the resident started his antibiotics for pneumonia five days after returning from the hospital. The nurse stated the facility’s process is to start new medications within 24 hours. The nurse stated when the resident refused to take his antibiotics, facility staff failed to update the nurse of the resident’s refusals. During an interview, the primary care provider stated during a routine visit with the resident, the resident had crackles in his lungs and an x-ray was ordered because of concern of pneumonia. The primary care provider stated he was not made aware by the facility that the resident was hospitalized for pneumonia or that the resident had refused his first round of antibiotics. The primary care provider stated an antibiotic was an important medication to treat pneumonia and facility should have interventions to ensure the resident got his medications. The primary care provider stated because the resident refused to take his antibiotics, different alternatives were tried, such as a liquid form of an antibiotic. The primary care provider stated the resident was not re-hospitalized but could have been. 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: Yes. Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes. Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Not Applicable. the Action taken by facility: The facility educated staff on attempting to give the resident medications three times, and notifying the nurse if the resident refused a medication. 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 Ramsey County Attorney Maplewood City Attorney Maplewood Police Department PRINTED: 10/08/2024 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 _____________________________ 30614 09/04/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 2300 HAZELWOOD STREET THE ENCORE AT MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 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 CORRECTION using federal software. Tag numbers have ORDER been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section assigned tag number appears in the 144G.08 to 144G.95, these correction orders are far-left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The issued pursuant to a complaint investigation state Statute number and the corresponding text of the state Statute out Determination of whether a violation is corrected of compliance is listed in the "Summary requires compliance with all requirements Statement of Deficiencies" column. This provided at the statute number indicated below. column also includes the findings which When a Minnesota Statute contains several are in violation of the state requirement items, failure to comply with any of the items will after the statement, "This Minnesota be considered lack of compliance. requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators' findings is the INITIAL COMMENTS: Time Period for Correction. #HL306144301M/#HL306145180C PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On September 4, 2024, the Minnesota STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF Department of Health conducted a complaint CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO investigation at the above provider, and the FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS following correction orders are issued. At the time WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. of the complaint investigation, there were 39 residents receiving services under the provider's THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO Assisted Living with Dementia Care license.
Other facilities in Ramsey County.
Other memory care facilities in Ramsey 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.