Editorial Independence

StarlynnCare receives no referral commissions, lead fees, or paid placement from any operator. Rankings are derived solely from state inspection records and verified family reviews.

StarlynnCare
Minnesota · Robbinsdale

Copperfield Hill the Lodge.

Copperfield Hill the Lodge is Grade C−, ranked in the bottom 49% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Aug 2025.

ALF · Memory Care110 licensed beds · largeDementia-trained staff
4020 Lakeland Avenue North · Robbinsdale, MN 55422LIC# ALRC:435
Facility · Robbinsdale
Copperfield Hill the Lodge
© Google Street Viewoperator? submit a photo →
A 110-bed ALF · Memory Care with one citation on file (Mar 2024).
Last inspection · Aug 2025 · citedSource · MDH
Licensed beds
110
Memory care
✓ Yes
Last inspection
Aug 2025
Last citation
Mar 2024
Operated by
Phone
§ 01 · Snapshot

A large home, reviewed on public record.

§ 02 · Peer Comparison

Ranked against 138 Minnesota facilities.

ALF memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better. Source: Minnesota Dept. of Health · Health Regulation Division.

Severity rank
16th
Weighted citations per bed.
peer median
0
100
Repeat rank
100th
Repeat deficiencies as share of total.
peer median
0
100
Frequency rank
30th
Deficiencies per inspection.
peer median
0
100

FACILITY WATCH · BETA

Copperfield Hill the Lodge has 1 citation on record. Know the moment anything changes.

New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.

§ 03 · The Record

Citation history, plotted month by month.

1 deficiencie on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.

0weighted score · 24 mo
No citation activity in this window.
peer median
Jun 2024May 2026

Finding distribution

1 total · 36 months

Scope × Severity (CMS A–L)

Isolated
Pattern
Widespread
Sev 4 · IJ
J
K
L
Sev 3
G1
H
I
Sev 2
D
E
F
Sev 1
A
B
C
§ 05 · Tour Prep

Questions to ask before you visit.

A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Copperfield Hill the Lodge's record and state requirements.

01 /

The facility holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minnesota Statutes chapter 144G with 110 licensed beds — can you describe the specific dementia care program requirements you follow under state law, and provide a copy of your written dementia care policies for families to review?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

02 /

MDH conducted an inspection on August 22, 2025, and the current record shows zero deficiencies cited — can you walk us through how the facility prepares for state surveys, and share any internal quality assurance audits or corrective measures taken since that visit?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

03 /

Three complaints were filed with the Minnesota Department of Health during the inspection period on file — can you tell us whether any of those complaints were substantiated, and provide documentation of how the facility responded to each complaint?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

§ 06 · Full Inspection Record

Every MDH visit, verbatim.

4 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.

4
reports on file
1
total deficiencies
2025-08-22
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

A routine inspection of Copperfield Hill The Lodge on August 20, 2025, found a violation related to fire protection and physical environment under Minnesota state law, resulting in a $500 fine assessed at Level 2. The facility must document the actions it has taken to correct this violation and ensure compliance with the statute.

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 necessar yto ensure the health, safety, and welfare of residents in your care. STATE CORRECTIO ONRDERS 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 Statemen tof Deficiencies "column. This column also includes the findings that are in violation of the state statute after the statement, "This MN Requiremen tis not met as evidenced by . . ." IMPOSITION OF FINES In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G3. 1, 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: Leve l1: no fines or enforcement; Leve l2: a fine of $500 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G2. 0; Leve l3: a fine of $1,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G2. 0; Leve l4: a fine of $3,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G2. 0; An equal opportunity employer . Letter ID: IS7N REVISE 0D9/13/2021 Copperfield Hill The Lodge October 3, 2025 Page 2 Leve l5: a fine of $5,000 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G2. 0. Therefore ,in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G0. 1 to 144G9. 999, the following fines are assessed pursuant to this Survey: St - 0 - 0775 - 144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physica lEnvironment - $500.00 Therefore ,in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G0. 1 to 144G9. 999, the total amount you are assesse dis $500.00 You will be invoiced approximately 30 days after receipt of this notice, subject to . appeal DOCUMENTATIO ONF ACTION TO COMPLY In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G3. 0, Subd .5(c), the licensee must docum ent 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: x Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected related to the resident(s)/ employees( ) identified in the correction order. x 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. x Identify what changes to your systems and practices were made to ensure compliance with the specific statute(s). CORRECTIO ONRDER RECONSIDERATI OPRNOCESS In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G3. 2, Subd .2, you may challenge the correction order(s) issued, including the level and scope ,and any fine assesse dthrough 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 REQUESTIN AG HEARING Alternatively ,in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G3. 1, Subd .5(d), an assisted living provider that has been assesse da fine under this subdivision has a right to a reconsideration or a hearing under this section and chapter 14. Pursuan tto Minn. Stat. § 144G2. 0, 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. Copperfield Hill The Lodge October 3, 2025 Page 3 To submit a hearing request, please visit: https:/ / forms.web.health.state.mn.us/form/ HRDAppealsForm To appea lfines via reconside ration, please follow the pr ocedur e outlined above. Plea se note that you may request a reconsideration or 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: https:/ / forms.office.com/g/ Bm5uQEpHV.a Your input is important to us and will enable MDH to improve its processe sand communication with providers . If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire ,please contact Susan Winkelmann at susanw. inkelmann@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 organizations’ Governing Body. If you have any questions ,please contact me. Sincerely, Casey DeVries ,Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: caseyd. evries@state.mn.us Telephone :651-201-5917 Fax :1-866-890-9290 kfd PRINTED: 10/03/2025 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 _____________________________ 29966 08/20/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 4020 LAKELAND AVENUE NORTH COPPERFIELD HILL THE LODGE ROBBINSDALE, MN 55422 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE PREFIX PREFIX 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." issued pursuant to a survey. The 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. SL29966016-0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On August 18, 2025, through August 20, 2025, STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO full survey 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 survey, there were 98 residents; 98 receiving services under the Assisted Living THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO Facility with Dementia Care license. 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 1O4911 If continuation sheet 1 of 17 PRINTED: 10/03/2025 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.

2025-04-17
Complaint Investigation
No findings

Plain-language summary

On April 17, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a complaint investigation at Copperfield Hill The Lodge in Robbinsdale regarding compliance with state laws and rules governing dementia care. No correction orders were issued as a result of the investigation. The investigation concluded on May 16, 2025.

Full inspector notes

STATE LICENSING COMPLIANCE REPORT Report #: Date Concluded: May 16, 2025 HL299663434C Name, Address, and County of Facility Investigated: Copperfield Hill The Lodge 4020 Lakeland Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Hennepin County Facility Type: Assisted Living Facility with Evaluator’s Name: Erin Johnson-Crosby, RN Dementia Care (ALFDC) Special Investigator The Minnesota Department of Health conducted a complaint investigation to determine compliance with state laws and rules governing the provision of care under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 144G. The purpose of this complaint investigation was to review if facility policies and practices comply with applicable laws and rules. No maltreatment under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 626 was alleged. To view a copy of the correction orders, if any, please visit: https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/directory/provcompselect.html, or call website, please see the attached state form. PRINTED: 06/12/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ C B. WING _____________________________ 29966 04/17/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 4020 LAKELAND AVENUE NORTH COPPERFIELD HILL THE LODGE ROBBINSDALE, MN 55422 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 April 17, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health initiated an investigation of complaint #HL299663434C. No correction orders are issued. LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 4GWU11 If continuation sheet 1 of 1

2024-09-16
Complaint Investigation
No findings

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that a resident with dementia reported being hit and roughed up by a staff member, and staff observed bruising on the resident's face and arm, but the Minnesota Department of Health determined the allegation of abuse was inconclusive because there was no witness to the alleged hitting and insufficient evidence to prove what caused the bruises. The facility removed the staff member from employment and reported the matter to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center. No further action was taken by the Department of Health.

Full inspector notes

Finding: Inconclusive 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 a resident when the AP was found with the resident in her room and the resident had a bruise on her left eye and right arm. The resident reported the AP hit her. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. Although the resident reported the AP hit her, nobody witnessed the AP hitting or harming the resident. The AP denied hitting the resident. It could not be determined how the resident got the bruises on her arm and under her eye. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigation included review of medical records, staff training, employee files, and facility policies and procedures. An equal opportunity employer. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit. The resident’s diagnoses included dementia. The resident’s service plan included assistance with bathing, grooming, dressing, toileting, meals, and medication administration. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident had difficulty communicating her needs and could be resistive to cares. A facility investigation of the incident indicated the facility nurse was contacted by a unlicensed staff who reported they were in the hallway outside the residents room and heard the resident yelling. When the staff went into the resident’s room the AP was trying to undress the resident. The staff noticed the resident had bruising under her right eye and a skin tear on her left arm. The resident stated the AP hurt her face and arm. The resident also told the staff the day before the AP threw her on the bed and was rough with her. When interviewed the facility nurse stated the on-call nurse reported two unlicensed staff responded to the resident’s apartment because they heard her yelling. The nurse stated the staff observed the resident with a mark on her face and a skin tear on her arm. The nurse stated the staff reported the AP was removing the resident’s clothing. The nurse stated the AP was sent home pending investigation and the resident was interviewed. The resident told the nurse the AP was rough with her. During interview, an unlicensed staff stated she saw the resident in the hallway yelling, “help me, help me, he hurt me.” The staff stated the resident had a bruise on her eye and her arm, and the staff did not remember seeing those marks on the resident during dinner. The staff stated when she responded to the resident the AP was just walking out of the resident’s room. When interviewed the on-call facility nurse stated she received a call from the unlicensed personnel reporting the resident was yelling and she found the resident with a bruise on her eye. The on-call nurse stated she assessed the resident the next day and noted bruising on her eye and arm. In an interview, the AP stated he noticed the resident had bruises earlier in the day and another staff member told him the resident had an altercation with another resident. The AP stated the resident had been combative during cares and was hitting out at him. The AP stated when the resident became combative, he left the room. The AP stated he did not hit the resident and he was not rough with the resident. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. Inconclusive: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, Subdivision 11. "Inconclusive" means there is less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or 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 cognition Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Yes the Action taken by facility: The facility filed a report with the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center. The AP no longer works at the facility. Action taken by the Minnesota Department of Health: No 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: 09/16/2024 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 _____________________________ 29966 07/25/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 4020 LAKELAND AVENUE NORTH COPPERFIELD HILL THE LODGE ROBBINSDALE, MN 55422 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 July 25, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health initiated an investigation of complaint #H 299666410C/#HL299663682M. L No correction orders are issued. LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 5OG011 If continuation sheet 1 of 1

2024-03-06
Complaint Investigation
1 · Substantiated Finding

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that two staff members forcibly held a memory care resident's arms and escorted her from the dining room, during which the resident fell to the floor; video showed the resident was left lying face-down in the hallway for over 17 minutes without assistance, though the investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the staff actions constituted abuse or neglect under Minnesota law. The facility's internal review determined that the staff did not follow the facility's fall policy. The investigation could not establish whether the handling of the resident or the delayed response to her fall met the legal definition of maltreatment.

Substantiated FindingMinn. Stat. §MN-SUBST
Verbatim citation text · Minn. Stat. §MN-SUBST

MDH substantiated maltreatment or licensing violation finding

Full inspector notes

Finding: Inconclusive 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): Alleged perpetrator 1 (AP1), and AP2, physically abused the resident when they forcibly removed the resident from the dining room against her will, which led to the resident falling to the floor. The alleged perpetrators (AP1 and AP2) neglected the resident when the resident was left lying on the floor after a fall for over ten minutes before receiving assistance to stand up. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined it was inconclusive whether abuse and neglect occurred. AP1 and AP2 were responsible for the maltreatment. Some evidence indicated AP1 and AP2 forcibly grabbed the residents’ arms and forced the resident from the facility dining room. AP1 and AP2 each took one of the resident’s arms to walk her out of the dining room while the resident physically resisted their restraint of her arms. As the resident continued to struggle, AP1 stepped on the resident’s foot or tripped over the resident’s foot, causing the resident to fall to her knees and then face-first onto the floor. AP1 and AP2 left the resident lay on the floor for over 17 minutes while they continued to complete tasks around the facility. There was insufficient evidence to determine if the actions of AP1 and AP2 constituted unreasonable confinement, or were treatment which was humiliating, harassing, or threatening. There was also insufficient evidence regarding why the resident was not assessed or helped up in a timely manner. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator also contacted a family member. The investigator reviewed records including the resident’s chart, personnel files, facility policies and procedures, and the facility’s internal investigation. Also, the investigator observed staff interactions with residents in the facility. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit. The resident’s diagnoses included dementia, vertigo, and dizziness. The resident received services including help with activities of daily living, meals, medication management, laundry, and housekeeping. The resident’s assessment indicated moderately impaired decision-making and could walk independently. The facility’s internal investigation indicated AP1 filed a report of injury stating she fell while assisting a resident and sustained an injury. The report indicated a memory care resident was causing a disturbance during dinnertime, so AP1 and AP2 tried to redirect her by taking her back to her apartment. In the process of guiding the resident, AP1 stated the resident continued to resist. A supervisor reviewed camera footage and indicated AP1 and AP2 attempted to escort the resident from the dining room by taking hold of both the residents’ arms. The resident fell to her knees as they entered the hallway from the dining room. AP1 fell along with the resident. AP1 was helped up, but the resident was left lying on the floor for an excessive amount of time. The resident was eventually helped up when an additional staff member arrived at the memory care unit. The internal investigation indicated the facility’s fall policy was not followed. AP2 met with facility leadership, watched the video, and stated the resident was being behavioral, so she and AP1 decided to escort her back to her apartment. AP2 stated she did not mean to cause harm to the resident. AP1 did not meet with facility leadership but posted a letter of resignation. Video of what occurred in the dining room was not available for the investigator to review, but review of video footage as AP1, AP2, and the resident entered the hallway from the dining room was available and revealed the following: The recorded video of the incident was reviewed and AP1 and AP2 were observed leading the resident out of the dining room. AP1 was holding the resident’s right arm, and AP2 was holding the resident’s left arm. The resident appeared to be struggling and AP1 stepped on or tripped over the resident’s right foot with her left foot and the resident fell to her knees, then face first to with the resident, bracing the floor. The resident lay on the floor on her abdomen. AP1 fell a short way her fall with her hands, appearing to slightly bump the side of her right knee on the floor. AP2 stood over AP1 and the resident. The resident did not move and continued to lay face down on the floor. AP1 laid on the floor until another resident walked in from the dining room and helped AP2 get AP1 off the floor. The other resident, AP1, and AP2 returned to the dining room while the resident continued to lay on the floor. The resident laid alone in the hallway face first on the floor. AP2 returned to hallway and started picking up the napkins and placemats that had fallen around the resident when she fell. AP2 walked back into the dining room without providing the resident any assistance. The resident was observed struggling to get off the floor. The resident eventually was able to sit up and began to scoot on her bottom down the hallway. AP2 returned to hallway and appeared to talk to the resident while the resident continued to sit on the floor. AP1 walked down the hallway and AP1 and AP2 stood over the resident talking to each other while the resident remained on the floor. AP1 and AP2 then walked away toward the dining room. AP2 stepped over the resident as she walked away. Eventually, a staff member from Assisted Living (AL) entered the hallway and saw the resident on the floor. The other staff walked toward the dining room, and then returned to the resident with AP2. The AL staff and AP2 assisted the resident off the floor. The resident was on the floor for over 17 minutes. When interviewed, a supervisor stated she reviewed video of what occurred in the dining room with the resident and AP1 and AP2. The resident needed redirection because of behaviors, however, AP1 and AP2 forcefully grabbed the resident’s arm. AP1 and AP2 were trying to drag the resident out of the dining room while the resident was resisting. The supervisor indicated when the video switched to the hallway, AP1 and AP2 continued to force the resident out of the dining room when the resident fell. The supervisor stated she believed it was the nature in which AP1 and AP2 escorted the resident out of the dining room that caused the resident to fall. The video of the events in the dining room was unable to be reviewed during the investigation. When interviewed, AP1 stated the resident caused “chaos” in the dining room and attempts at redirection were unsuccessful. She and AP2 each took one of the residents’ arms to escort her back to her apartment, as the resident resisted. In the process, both the resident and AP1 fell to the floor. AP1 worked the rest of the shift passing medications, but stated she was in pain and could not assist AP2 in helping the resident off the floor. When interviewed, AP2 stated the resident was taking other people’s drinks in the dining room. She and AP1 tried to redirect her and when redirection failed, she and AP1 decided to take the resident to her apartment. AP1 and AP2 each took a hold of one of the resident’s arms to take her to her apartment, and the resident fought them. AP2 stated the resident was fighting AP1 and AP2 and that’s how the resident fell. AP1 said her knee hurt so she was unable to help AP2 get the resident up from the floor. AP2 stated she needed to wait for someone from another unit to help her get the resident off the floor since she could not do it alone. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined it was inconclusive whether abuse and neglect were substantiated. Inconclusive: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, Subdivision 11. "Inconclusive" means there is less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur. Abuse: Minnesota Statutes section 626.5572, subdivision 2.

1 older inspection from 2023 are not shown in the free view.

1 older inspection (20232023) are available with a premium membership.

§ 07 · Nearby

Other facilities in Hennepin County.

Other memory care facilities in Hennepin 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.

Related in this city

Other memory care options nearby.

Nearby cities · same county

More options in neighboring cities

Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.

Is this listing wrong? Report an issue →
Reports help us maintain accurate facility information. Your report will be reviewed within 1-2 business days.