Suite Living Senior Care of Ra.
Suite Living Senior Care of Ra is Grade C−, ranked in the bottom 49% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Feb 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
Suite Living Senior Care of Ra 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 Ra's record and state requirements.
The most recent inspection on February 26, 2025 found zero deficiencies across all standards — can you walk us through how the community prepares for Minnesota Department of Health surveys and what internal audits or quality checks you use to maintain compliance?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Two complaints were filed with the Minnesota Department of Health during the inspection period on file — can you share whether those complaints were substantiated and what corrective steps the facility took in response?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
This facility holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minnesota Statute chapter 144G — can you provide a copy of your written dementia care program and explain how staff training is documented to meet the dementia-specific requirements?
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.
2025-02-26Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine licensing survey of Suite Living of Ramsey was conducted February 24–26, 2025, and correction orders were issued for violations of Minnesota state statutes; no immediate fines were assessed. The facility must document how it corrected the areas of noncompliance and made system changes to ensure future compliance within the timeframe specified on the state form. The document indicates a deficiency related to food service requirements but does not provide complete details of all findings.
Full inspector notes
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 survey 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: 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). An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISED 09/13/2021 Suite Living of Ramsey March 28, 2025 Page 2 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, Kelly Thorson, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Kelly.Thorson@state.mn.us Telephone: 320-223-7336 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 HHH PRINTED: 03/28/2025 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 _____________________________ 36601 02/26/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 7007 139TH LANE NW SUITE LIVING OF RAMSEY RAMSEY, MN 55303 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 Licensing Correction Orders using federal software. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section Tag numbers have been assigned to 144G.08 to 144G.95, these correction orders are Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted issued pursuant to a survey. Living License Providers. The assigned tag number appears in the far left column Determination of whether violations are corrected entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The state Statute requires compliance with all requirements number and the corresponding text of the provided at the Statute number indicated below. state Statute out of compliance is listed in When Minnesota Statute contains several items, the "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" failure to comply with any of the items will be column. This column also includes the considered lack of compliance. findings which are in violation of the state requirement after the statement, "This INITIAL COMMENTS: Minnesota requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the surveyors' SL36601016 findings is the Time Period for Correction. On February 24, 2025, through February 26, PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH conducted a full survey at the above provider. At STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF the time of the survey, there were 29 resident(s); CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO all receiving services under the 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 subd. 1, 2, and 3. 0 480 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum 0 480 SS=F requirements; required food services (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 D4Q011 If continuation sheet 1 of 18 PRINTED: 03/28/2025 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 _____________________________ 36601 02/26/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 7007 139TH LANE NW SUITE LIVING OF RAMSEY RAMSEY, MN 55303 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 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 allowed provided the facility keeps them clean STATE FORM 6899 D4Q011 If continuation sheet 2 of 18 PRINTED: 03/28/2025 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 _____________________________ 36601 02/26/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 7007 139TH LANE NW SUITE LIVING OF RAMSEY RAMSEY, MN 55303 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 and in good condition; (6) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.1375, shielded or shatter-resistant lightbulbs are not required, but if a light bulb breaks, the facility must discard all exposed food and fully clean all equipment, dishes, and surfaces to remove any glass particles; and (7) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.1390, toilet rooms are not required to be provided with a self-closing door.
2024-12-19Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
Minnesota Department of Health investigated a complaint and substantiated that the facility neglected a resident after a fall by failing to properly assess and monitor her for injuries, despite a skin tear and complaints of severe pain—the resident was later hospitalized with broken ribs, blood in the lungs, and blood clots in both legs, requiring chest tubes and two weeks of hospitalization. Staff did not communicate changes in the resident's condition between unlicensed personnel and nurses, did not ensure an ordered chest x-ray was completed at the facility, and failed to provide post-fall monitoring or pain management beyond over-the-counter medication. The facility was found 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 thoroughly assess the resident for injuries after the resident sustained a fall. The resident went to the hospital two times after for the same fall, and admitted the second time for broken ribs, a hemothorax (a serious condition that occurs when blood collects in the pleural space, the hollow area between the lungs and rib cage), and blood clots in both legs. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The facility staff failed to assess and monitor the resident for injury post fall despite a skin tear, resident complaints of pain and change in condition. The facility staff failed to communicate changes in the resident’s status between unlicensed personnel (ULP) and nurses. The facility failed to coordinate care, ensuring the resident completed an ordered chest x-ray. The resident had significant bruising to her right ribs and experienced pain for seven days after the fall prior to admitting to the hospital with rib fractures, a large hemothorax and bilateral pulmonary emboli (a clot in the lungs). The resident required chest tubes and hospitalized for two weeks. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, unlicensed staff, and family members. The investigation included review of the resident records, death record, hospital records, medical provider portal notes, physician orders, facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, staff schedules, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed resident care provided by staff while on site. The resident resided in an assisted living facility memory care unit. The resident’s diagnoses included osteoporosis and muscle weakness. The resident’s service plan included safety checks every two hours, assistance with medications, dressing twice daily, bathing three times a week, toileting every shift, transfers, and mobility to meals three times a day. The resident’s assessment indicated she was cognitively intact. Her baseline skin assessment included a scar on her tailbone. The resident’s baseline pain assessment indicated she had right hip pain, scored the worst pain was 3 out 10 with movement and used Tylenol (over the counter pain medication) and rest for pain interventions. The resident’s baseline pain did not affect her social activities or appetite and scored pain 1 out 10 at the time of the assessment. A facility incident report indicated on an evening before a holiday (Wednesday), the resident sustained a fall while self-ambulating with her walker. Facility unlicensed personnel (ULP) 1 noted the resident on the floor, obtained vital signs, and called the on call registered nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 directed the ULP 1 to assist the resident back into her chair and to update her with any changes. The incident report indicated a skin tear was noted to the resident’s right forearm. The incident report indicated RN 1 notified the resident’s family and medical provider of the fall two days after it occurred, and an x-ray order was obtained. The incident report lacked follow up on assessing the resident or further fall interventions. The resident’s medication administration record (MAR) indicated she had 5 out 10 pain the day of the fall and received Tylenol. The facility failed to initiate any post fall monitoring, including any further vital signs after the initial set, routine monitoring of pain and directive to ULP staff when increased pain occurs, monitoring for any developing signs or injury or changes in condition. The day after the fall was a holiday (Thursday), and no nurse was scheduled to work in the facility. The resident’s record lacked any information about her status, aside from the MAR. The resident’s MAR indicated she received Tylenol twice, once in the morning for pain 7 out of 10, and once in the evening for pain 9 out 10. The MAR indicated Tylenol was not effective. The second day after the fall (Friday), the resident’s medical record lacked documentation that indicated a RN physically assessed the resident for further injury after the fall, nor assessed her skin tear. The resident’s records lacked evidence of the treatment and monitoring of the skin tear injury. The resident’s progress notes indicated RN 1 received a phone call from ULP 1 regarding the resident’s fall and notified the resident’s medical provider due to the resident complaining of right hip and rib pain. An order for hip and chest x-ray was obtained. The resident’s MAR indicated she received Tylenol at 1:11 p.m. for pain 9 out of 10. The progress notes indicated later in the evening, the resident was sent to the emergency room per family request due to pain to be evaluated prior to the completion of the onsite x-rays. The medical providers portal notes included the orders for x-ray of hip and x-ray of chest with attention to right ribs was given to the facility. The medical provider notes included documentation the resident was seen in the emergency room (ER) Friday at 7:51 p.m. and discharged at 12:12 a.m. Saturday. The resident’s hospital records indicated the resident completed a pelvic x-ray and pelvic CT scan, both of which did not indicate fracture or injury while in the ER. The resident did not obtain a chest x-ray while in the ER. The resident returned to the facility, after midnight, on Saturday. The third day after the fall (Saturday), mobile x-ray provider orders indicated they received orders to complete the STAT x-ray of the right hip two days after the fall. There is no evidence the x-ray provider received the order to complete a chest x-ray. The mobile x-ray completed the hip x-ray on Saturday after the resident returned from the ER which did not indicate injury to the hip, same as the ER. The medical providers portal notes indicated at 9:28 a.m., Saturday morning, the medical provider messaged the facility nursing staff their awareness of the resident’s ER visit and requested nursing staff to provide an update on the resident. The resident’s MAR indicated she received Tylenol for 7 out of 10 pain. The fourth day after the fall (Sunday), the medical provider portal notes indicated the medical provider’s nurse messaged the facility again requesting an update on the resident’s status. Additionally, the provider’s nurse notified the facility nursing staff the resident was scheduled to be seen by the medical provider on Tuesday. There was no nurse scheduled in the facility for Saturday and Sunday. The resident’s record lacked progress notes on Saturday and Sunday. The facility nursing staff did not respond to the medical’s provider request for an update. The resident’s MAR showed no administration of Tylenol on Sunday. The fifth day after the fall (Monday), the resident’s progress notes indicated the family voiced concern to the facility of no nursing assessment and communication. Facility RN 3 spoke to the family and provided education on the assessment, the nurse on-call process and communication workflow to them. The progress notes indicated the same day, the licensed practical nurse (LPN) faxed the mobile x-ray results to the resident’s medical provider, but failed address the chest x-ray order was not completed. Additionally, the resident’s record lacked evidence of a nursing assessment with a physical evaluation of the resident’s body for injury following the fall with orders for a chest x-ray, increased pain requiring Tylenol for five days and post ER visit. The residents MAR indicated she received Tylenol for 4 out of 10 pain on the fifth day. The medical provider portal notes lacked evidence of the facility communicating the resident’s continued pain above her baseline. The sixth day after the fall (Tuesday), the resident’s medical record lacked progress notes for the day the medical provider was scheduled to evaluate the resident. The resident’s medical record lacked evidence of a nursing assessment. The resident’s care plan indicated she required assistance with walking, transfers, bed mobility and positioning, toileting, dressing assistance with resident participation, grooming assistance with resident participation, skin scare, and medication administration. The resident’s service records indicated prior to the fall; the resident ate her meals in the dining room.
2 older inspections from 2022 are not shown in the free view.
2 older inspections (2022–2023) 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.