Harmony House of Pierz.
Harmony House of Pierz is Grade C−, ranked in the bottom 46% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected May 2025.
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
Harmony House of Pierz 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 Harmony House of Pierz's record and state requirements.
The Minnesota Department of Health conducted its most recent inspection on February 17, 2023 — can you walk us through what that inspection covered and share any written reports or corrective action plans MDH provided afterward?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Your license shows Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care under Minnesota Statute chapter 144G — can you explain what specific dementia care supports and staff training requirements that designation requires, and show us written policies that describe how you meet those standards?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
One complaint was filed with MDH during the inspection period on record — was that complaint substantiated, and if so, what corrective steps did the facility document in response?
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.
2025-05-14Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection of Harmony House on May 14, 2025 found one violation related to fire protection and physical environment under Minnesota Statutes chapter 144G, resulting in a $500 fine assessed to the facility. The facility must document the actions it took to correct this violation within the timeframe specified by the state.
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 . . ." 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 for widespread violations; Level 3: a fine of $3,000 per violation per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20. Level 4: a fine of $5,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISED 09/13/2021 Harmony House July 1, 2025 Page 2 § 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 Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, t he total amount you are assessed is $500.00. You will be invoiced approximately 30 days after receipt of this notice, subject to appeal. 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: 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 REQUESTING A 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. To submit a hearing request, please visit: Harmony House July 1, 2025 Page 3 https://forms.web.health.state.mn.us/form/HRDAppealsForm To appeal fines via reconsideration, please follow the procedure outlined above. P lease note that you may request a reconsideration o r a hearing, but not both. If you wish to contest tags without fines in a reconsideration and tags with the fines at a hearing, please submit two separate appeals forms at the website listed above. 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, Jessie Chenze, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Jessie.Chenze@state.mn.us Telephone: 218-332-5175 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 HHH PRINTED: 07/01/2025 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 _____________________________ 20172 05/14/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 26886 143RD STREET HARMONY HOUSE PIERZ, MN 56364 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 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 survey. state Statute number and the corresponding text of the state Statute out Determination of whether violations are 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 Minnesota Statute contains several items, are in violation of the state requirement failure to comply with any of the items will be after the statement, "This Minnesota considered lack of compliance. requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators ' findings is the INITIAL COMMENTS: Time Period for Correction. SL20172016-0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On May 12, 2025, through May 14, 2025, the STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF survey at the above provider. At the time of the FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS survey, there were 21 residents; 21 receiving WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. services under the Assisted Living Facility 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 N2Q411 If continuation sheet 1 of 26 PRINTED: 07/01/2025 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 _____________________________ 20172 05/14/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 26886 143RD STREET HARMONY HOUSE PIERZ, MN 56364 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.
2024-08-19Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found the facility neglected a resident with Parkinson's disease and dementia by failing to implement required fall-prevention measures, resulting in nine falls during the resident's first 52 days, including multiple head injuries requiring staples. The facility's care plan called for toileting assistance every 2–3 hours and frequent safety checks, but staff provided toileting only three times daily, did not implement regular safety checks for over seven weeks after admission, and failed to maintain or properly attach a bed alarm despite documentation problems with the alarm system. Although the resident chose to continue eating and drinking despite swallowing difficulties and prior aspiration pneumonia, the facility did not carry out its own written care instructions to prevent falls.
“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 a resident when they failed to provide appropriate care, services, monitoring, and supervision for a resident with swallowing issues resulting in aspiration pneumonia. In addition, the facility failed to ensure interventions to prevent falls was in place resulting in a fall with serious injuries. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The facility failed to ensure interventions were implemented to reduce the resident’s risk for falls. The resident had recurring falls and sustained multiple head lacerations, one that required 9 staples. Although the resident had recurring aspiration issues, the resident chose to continue to receive foods and fluids for quality of life despite the risk for recurring aspiration. 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), death record, hospital records, facility incident reports, staff schedules, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed resident’s and staff in the facility. The resident resided in an assisted living facility dementia care unit with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, aspiration pneumonia, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and dementia. The resident utilized hospice end of life services. The resident’s assessment and care plan indicated the resident was admitted to the facility due to frequent falls. The admission assessment identified the resident had 10 or more falls in the last 3 months, with 4 falls in the last week prior to admission. The resident was nonverbal, required 1 staff assistance with transfers and toileting, and was cognitively impaired with memory loss and confusion related to dementia and Parkinson’s Disease. The assessment identified the resident was at a risk for falls related to gait and balance problems, decreased strength and endurance due to physical decline, syncope, inability to communicate his needs, tremors causing decreased muscular coordination, unsteady staggered motion when turning, and impaired judgment. The care plan and assessment indicated the resident was dependent on staff assistance with toileting and incontinence care every 2-3 hours. The care plan and assessment indicated staff would offer assistance as needed, assure appropriate lighting, provide frequent wellbeing safety checks, and indicated the resident utilized a bed and chair alarm to alert staff of attempts to self-transfer. The resident’s service plan indicated staff were to provide toileting assistance 3 times daily. The service plan failed to include interventions to reduce the residence risk for falls including toileting and incontinence care every 2-3 hours, frequent safety checks, and a bed/chair alarm. The resident’s service delivery of care report for the resident’s bed/chair alarm indicated staff were to check the resident’s tabs alert system, and ensure it was working and attached to the resident one time per shift. Documentation included multiple notes from staff indicating the resident did not have an alarm, or the alarm was not working. The resident’s service delivery of care record for toileting included instructions to provide toileting and incontinence care to the resident every 2-3 hours. However, the report indicated the resident’s toileting service was scheduled only 3 times daily, not every 2-3 hours as assessed and directed by the resident’s plan of care. The resident’s service delivery of care record for safety checks indicated safety checks were not implemented as indicated in the resident’s assessment and care plan until 52 days after the resident was admitted to the facility for falls, and after the resident had sustained 9 falls in the facility. A facility incident report indicated the resident’s first fall occurred the day after admission to the facility. The incident report indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall, and indicated immediate action taken to prevent recurrence was to watch the resident more closely. However, there was no indication any action was taken to prevent recurrence. The following day a fall incident report indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall in the hallway from his wheelchair. The resident was incontinent of bladder and was toileted last at 7:30 p.m. (7 hours prior to the fall). The incident report indicated the resident had a head strike with a small bleeding laceration to the back of his head. The incident report indicated the resident had not received toileting services, or safety checks as indicated in his assessment and care plan. There was no indication any action was taken to prevent recurrence. The following day a fall incident report indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall and was found in his room by his dresser resulting in a head strike and the resident’s previous head laceration was bigger and bleeding. The incident report indicated the immediate intervention was to check on the resident more frequently. However, there was no indication safety checks were implemented, and no action was taken to prevent recurrence. The same day a progress note indicated the facility received new orders for a bed alarm. The resident record failed to indicate a bed alarm was ever implemented. The following day a fall incident report indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall. The report indicated the resident’s alarm was in use but did not sound. The incident report indicated the immediate intervention was to check on the resident more frequently. However, there was no indication safety checks were implemented, and no action was taken to prevent recurrence. A fall incident report 12 days later indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall, his alarm sounded, and he was found face down between his bed and rocking chair with a head strike causing a small goose egg. The resident was incontinent of bladder at the time the fall occurred. The immediate intervention to prevent recurrence was to provide every 2-hour safety checks. However, no action was taken to prevent recurrence, and there was no indication every 2-hour safety checks were implemented. A fall incident note 10 days later indicated the resident called for assistance and staff found the resident on the floor. The resident’s alarm was under the bed not attached to the resident because the adhesive was no longer sticky, and the alarm did not sound. No incident report was completed, and there was no indication any action was taken to prevent recurrence. A fall incident note 5 days later indicated the resident was found on the floor with his alarm laying on his pillow. No incident report was completed and there was no indication any action was taken to prevent recurrence. The following day a fall incident report indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall. The report indicated no alarm was in use at the time the incident occurred. The immediate action to prevent recurrence was to implement a bed alarm. The incident report indicated it was reviewed by the facility registered nurse (RN) who indicated the resident’s care plan was followed at the time the incident occurred despite the resident’s alarm not being utilized, and toileting and safety checks had not been implemented as indicated in the resident’s assessment and plan of care. There was no indication any action was taken to prevent recurrence. A fall incident report 10 days later indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall, resulting in a head strike with a laceration that was bleeding. The report indicated the residents alarm was not in use at the time the incident occurred. The incident report reviewed by the facility RN who indicated the resident’s care plan was followed despite the resident’s alarm not being utilized at the time the incident occurred, and toileting and safety checks had not been implemented as indicated in the resident’s assessment and plan of care. There was no indication any action was taken to prevent recurrence. A fall progress note 10 days later indicated at 2:51 a.m. the resident was found on the floor. The note failed to indicate the resident had any injuries. No incident report was completed. Approximately 4 hours later another progress note indicated the resident was found in bed with blood on the floor, his hands, bedding, and staff noted the resident had a laceration on the back left side of his head.
1 older inspection from 2023 are not shown in the free view.
1 older inspection (2023–2023) are available with a premium membership.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
No published reviews yet. Use the button above to share your experience.