Benedictine Living Community |.
Benedictine Living Community | is Grade C−, ranked in the bottom 46% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Sep 2023.
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
Benedictine Living Community | 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 Benedictine Living Community |'s record and state requirements.
The most recent inspection on September 29, 2023 resulted in zero deficiencies — can you walk us through the written policies and procedures that guide dementia care here, and show us documentation of how staff are trained on those protocols?
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 if so, what corrective actions the facility implemented in response?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
This community holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minnesota Statutes chapter 144G — what specific dementia care programming and environmental modifications are in place to meet that licensing standard, and can families review the written dementia care plan during a tour?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every MDH visit, verbatim.
3 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-03-24Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that an unlicensed caregiver at this memory care facility abused and neglected a resident by recording her on a cell phone, posting the video on social media, asking inappropriate questions, and failing to assist her—during the recording, the resident fell from her wheelchair to the floor. The investigation could not conclusively determine whether the same caregiver abused a second resident, as video evidence was unavailable, though staff reported videos of that resident were also recorded and shared. The facility's policy prohibits recording residents without business need and written permission.
“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: The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused two residents (resident #1 and resident #2) when she recorded them with her cell phone and shared them on social media (Snap Chat). Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse and neglect were substantiated. The AP, an unlicensed caregiver, was responsible for the maltreatment. Resident #1: The AP abused the resident by recording herself asking resident #1 inappropriate questions, not offering assistance, and then posting that video on social media (Snap Chat) treating the residents needs in a disparaging way. Additionally, the AP neglected resident #1 during the same interaction by not providing assistance for the resident. As the video ends, the resident falls from her wheelchair to the floor. Resident #2: The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. While there were reports the AP recorded and posted videos of resident #2, no video evidence was available for the investigation to review. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted law enforcement. The investigation included review of the resident records, 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 memory care residents and cell phone use on a recent visit to the facility. Both residents resided in an assisted living memory care unit. Resident 1’s diagnoses included dementia, anxiety, visual impairment and a history of falls. The resident’s service plan included assistance with all activities of daily living and medication management. The resident used a wheelchair for mobility and was a risk for falls. Resident 2’s diagnoses included Alzheimer’s disease. The resident’s service plan included assistance with all activities of daily living and medication management. The resident used assistive devices to aid mobility and was a risk for falls. A concern arose when the AP had recorded and shared multiple videos of residents for non-work purposes. A law enforcement report indicated the AP recorded multiple residents while working at the facility. Two videos were retrieved. Other videos were reported as viewed but were not able to be retrieved as evidence. One video, which included audio, showed the resident #1 in her wheelchair while a caregiver, the AP, sitting observing her and asking her questions. The AP asks questions including “can you lay in bed for me” while intermittently giggling. The video showed the resident backing away from the bed while placing both hands on the arm rest of her wheelchair and leaning forward as if to initiate a transfer, however she did not rise from the chair. The AP says at one point to “not go on the floor” but does not offer nor provide physical assistance. While the video recording continued, not long afterwards, the resident falls out of the wheelchair and onto the floor. The video ends as this occurs. During investigative interviews, multiple caregivers stated the AP either shared videos of residents or were told about the videos. During an interview, an unlicensed caregiver stated the AP told her she recorded resident #1 while she was falling and the AP thought it was funny. The caregiver stated the resident did not seem to be her usual self when the AP was in the room during caregiving activities. During an interview, a nurse stated she learned the AP had taken videos of residents, started an investigation, and discovered the videos of residents. The nurse stated the videos included the AP asking inappropriate questions to recording a resident sliding out of the wheelchair after mocking the resident. The nurse stated facility policy prohibits the recording of residents. The nurse stated the recording and allowing a resident to fall to the floor was very concerning. The facility’s policy on the use of personal electronic devices indicated staff may not take photos or recordings of residents unless they have both a business need to do so and signed permission and act in accordance with the strict requirements applicable to those activities. During an interview, the AP stated she took the videos of residents so she could show a friend who was interested in working at the facility. The AP stated she thought the resident was re-adjusting herself in the wheelchair when she fell. The AP said she sent videos of residents to other co-workers and deleted the videos once she learned it was not okay to have them. She said she did not remember cell phone use policy training at the facility although the AP’s employment file indicated she signed off that received the facility’s cell phone policy. During interview, one family member stated the family had not seen the video but was told the resident was videoed while watching her fall. The family member stated the reason the resident was moved into memory care was to monitor more closely for falls. Regarding resident #2, no video was recovered for this investigation. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse and neglect were 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. Abuse: Minnesota Statutes section 626.5572, subdivision 2. "Abuse" means: (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. 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, due to cognitive impairment. Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes. Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Yes. Action taken by facility: The facility interviewed all staff and residents who may have been affected. The facility vulnerable adult policy and cell phone use policy were reviewed with each staff member. The AP no longer worked at the facility. Action taken by the Minnesota Department of Health: The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult’s right to be free from maltreatment. 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 You may also call 651-201-4200 to receive a copy via mail or email. The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. If maltreatment is substantiated against an identified employee, this report will be submitted to the nurse aide registry for possible inclusion of the finding on the abuse registry and/or to the Minnesota Department of Human Services for possible disqualification in accordance with the provisions of the background study requirements under Minnesota 245C. cc: The Office of Ombudsman for Long Term Care The Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Goodhue County Attorney Red Wing City Attorney Red Wing Police Department PRINTED: 03/ 30/ 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: ______________________ C B.
2023-10-20Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that an employee was not abusive when she held a resident's hands and assisted with showering after an incontinence episode; the resident had a documented history of physical aggression toward staff and was resisting care, and the employee held his hands to prevent being struck while caregivers cleaned him. The investigation included interviews with facility staff and review of resident records, assessments, and incident reports, and a nurse found no injuries on the resident. The Minnesota Department of Health concluded the abuse allegation was not substantiated.
Full inspector notes
Finding: Not Substantiated 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) abused the resident when she forcefully showered him while restraining his hands after an incontinence episode. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. Two unlicensed caregivers (caregiver #1 and caregiver 2) were trying to provide the residents cares after an incontinence episode, but they could not do so due to his resistance to cares so they asked the AP to help. While the AP did hold the resident's hands during the delivery of his cares, this was done because he was trying to swing at her as she provided cares as she asked the two unlicensed caregivers to help her finish the resident’s cares. An equal opportunity employer. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed caregivers. The investigation included review of resident records, including assessments, progress notes, incident reports, care plans and facility incident investigation documentation. Also, the investigator observed staff interaction with residents. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit. The resident’s diagnoses included Alzheimer’s disease with early onset and dementia with agitation. The resident’s service plan included assistance with incontinence care and bathing. The resident’s assessment indicated resident required frequent redirection, was resistive to cares, and needed two staff members to provide care due to physical aggression towards staff members. The facility internal investigation indicated unlicensed caregiver #1, who was in training with unlicensed caregiver #2, was assisting in providing cares for the resident, however after several attempts, they were unable to complete the cares due to the resident's ongoing resistive behavior. The same document indicated the AP was asked to help provide cares but allegedly was too rough in doing so. The nurse completed an assessment on the resident and identified no injuries. The facility interviewed all three unlicensed caregivers, and although all three gave differing explanations of what occurred. The same document included interview notes from caregiver #1. She stated they were trying to provide the resident cares as he was incontinent and getting on his clothes and furniture. Unlicensed caregivers #1 and #2 were struggling because the resident was hanging on to his pants and incontinence brief and would not let go. The two unlicensed caregivers asked the AP for help. The resident continued to resist cares, but the AP got him into the bathroom. The AP asked unlicensed caregivers #1 and #2 to help but they were uncomfortable with the situation and avoided helping. Caregiver #1 stated the AP sprayed water in the resident’s face. The same document included interview notes from caregiver #2. The resident was brought to the bathroom to change after incontinent of stool, however the resident was not cooperative and resisted cares, consequently the AP was asked to assist. The AP pulled the resident into the bathroom, restrained his hands, and independently pulled the residents pants down, because unlicensed caregiver #2 declined to assist. The document indicated the AP forced the resident into the shower and attempted to have the resident wash himself, at this time, unlicensed caregiver #2 began to assist washing the resident. When the AP tried to assist with washing, the resident was attempting to strike the AP. Unlicensed caregiver#2 stated the AP sprayed water in the resident’s face for attempting to hit or strike the AP. Unlicensed caregiver#2 said she asked the AP to leave and got the resident dressed. The time frame for this event she stated was a ten-minute period. The same document included interview notes from the AP. She stated she was asked to assist as the resident was uncooperative and had stool all over him. She reported the resident was in the bathroom when she arrived, she asked resident not to punch or yell at them. The resident began squeezing her hands and she let him. She held the resident’s hand and unlicensed caregiver #2 pulled his pants down. Then they cleaned him in the shower, however the resident does not like water, so he was continually moving. The AP denied intentionally spraying water in the resident’s face stating she did wash the resident’s face and was moving quickly due to resident being uncooperative and resistant to cares. During an interview, the AP stated she was asked to assist in showering resident. The AP stated she cleaned resident from head-to-toe and did not intentionally spray water in the resident’s face. The AP denied forcefully showering the resident or inappropriate behavior. The AP stated she did hold the resident’s hands due to history of known aggression to prevent being hit by the resident. During an interview, a member of the management team that there had not been any concerns with the AP’s provision of cares prior to this incident nor since. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. “Not Substantiated” means: An investigatory conclusion indicating the preponderance of evidence shows that an act meeting the definition of maltreatment 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: No, due to cognitive status Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Yes Action taken by facility: The facility suspended the AP while the facility conducted an internal investigation. 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: 10/24/2023 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 _____________________________ 20291 08/23/2023 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 135 PIONEER ROAD BENEDICTINE LIVING COMMUNITY | RED WIN RED WING, MN 55066 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 August 23, 2023 the Minnesota Department of Minnesota Department of Health is Health initiated an investigation of complaint documenting the State Correction Orders #HL202913448C/#HL202917064M. No using federal software. Tag numbers have correction 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. PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE.
2023-09-29Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A standard inspection of Benedictine Living Community in Red Wing was completed on September 29, 2023, and identified one violation related to appropriate care and services under Minnesota law. The facility was issued a correction order and assessed a fine of $3,000. The facility must document the actions it took to correct the violation and has the right to request reconsideration or a hearing within the specified timeframe.
Full inspector notes
CORRECTION ORDERS The enclosed State Form documents the state correction orders. The 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 § 144G.20. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 4 (a)(5), the MDH may impose fine amounts of either $1,000 or $5,000 to licensees who are found to be responsible for maltreatment. An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISED 09/13/2021 Benedictine Living Community | Red Wing November 1, 2023 Page 2 The MDH may impose a fine of $1,000 for each substantiated maltreatment violation that consists of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation according to Minn. Stat. § 626.5572, Subds. 2, 9, 17. The MDH also may impose a fine of $5,000 for each substantiated maltreatment violation consisting of sexual assault, death, or abuse resulting in serious injury. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 4 (b), when a fine is assessed against a facility for substantiated maltreatment, the commissioner shall not also impose an immediate fine under this chapter for the same circumstance. Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, the following fines are assessed pursuant to this survey: St - 0 - 2310 - 144g.91 Subd. 4 (a) - Appropriate Care And Services - $3,000.00 Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, t he total amount you are assessed is $3,000.00. 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 the MDH 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. Benedictine Living Community | Red Wing November 1, 2023 Page 3 Please email reconsideration requests to: Health.HRD.Appeals@state.mn.us. Please attach this letter as part of your reconsideration request. Please clearly indicate which tag(s) you are contesting and submit information supporting your position(s). Please address your cover letter for reconsideration requests to: Reconsideration Unit 85 East Seventh Place St. Paul, MN 55164-0970 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 MDH 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. Requests for hearing may be emailed to: Health.HRD.Appeals@state.mn.us. 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. 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 JMD PRINTED: 11/01/2023 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 _____________________________ 20291 09/29/2023 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 135 PIONEER ROAD BENEDICTINE LIVING COMMUNITY | RED WIN RED WING, MN 55066 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. SL20291015 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF On September 25, 2023, through September 29, THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH 2023, 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 45 active residents; WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. 42 receiving services under the Assisted Living with Dementia Care license. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA STATE 1750: Immediacy was removed on September STATUTES. 29, 2023; however, non-compliance remains at a level 2/Widespread (F). The letter in the left column is used for tracking purposes and reflects the scope 2310: Immediacy was removed on September and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 29, 2023; however, non-compliance remains at a subd. 1, 2, and 3. level 3/Pattern (H). 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 ZYY911 If continuation sheet 1 of 59 PRINTED: 11/01/2023 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.
Other facilities in Red Wing.
Other memory care facilities near Red Wing 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.