Amira Choice Roseville.
Amira Choice Roseville is Grade C, ranked in the top 44% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Sep 2025.
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
Amira Choice Roseville 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)
Every MDH visit, verbatim.
2 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-09-16Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection of Amira Choice Roseville on September 16, 2025 found violations in infection control procedures and fire protection/physical environment standards, resulting in two correction orders and $1,000 in fines assessed. The facility must document the specific actions taken to correct these deficiencies and ensure compliance across all affected residents and staff.
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 Statement of 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; An equal opportunity employer . Letter ID: IS7N REVISE 0D9/13/2021 Amira Choice Roseville October 15, 2025 Page 2 Leve l4: a fine of $3,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G2. 0; 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 - 0510 - 144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program - $500.00 St - 0 - 0775 - 144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physica lEnvironmen - $500.00 Therefore ,in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G0. 1 to 144G9. 999, the total amount you are assesse dis $1,000.00. 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), t he 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: x Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected related to the resident(s)/ employee(s) 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 Amira Choice Roseville October 15, 2025 Page 3 matter or issue contested and any new information you believe constitutes a defense or mitigating factor. To submit a hearing request, please visit: https:/ / forms.web.health.state.mn.us/form/ HRDAppealsForm To appea lfines via reconsideration ,please follow the procedure outlined above. Please 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 HHH PRINTED: 10/ 15/ 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 _____________________________ 28965 09/ 16/ 2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 2996 CLEVELAND AVENUE NORTH AMIRA CHOICE ROSEVILLE ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 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 Licensing ASSISTED LIVING PROVIDER LICENSING Correction Orders using federal software. CORRECTION ORDER( S) Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section Living License Providers. The assigned 144G. 08 to 144G. 95, these correction orders are tag number appears in the far-left column issued pursuant to a survey. entitled "ID Prefix Tag. " The state Statute number and the corresponding text of the Determination of whether violations are corrected state Statute out of compliance is listed in requires compliance with all requirements the "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. SL28965016- 0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On September 15, 2025, through September 16, STATES, "PROVIDER' S PLAN OF 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health CORRECTION. " THIS APPLIES TO conducted a full survey at the above provider and FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS the following correction orders are issued. At the WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. time of the survey, there were 78 residents; 63 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 subd. 1, 2, and 3. 0 480 144G. 41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum 0 480 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 UWJW11 If continuation sheet 1 of 14 PRINTED: 10/ 15/ 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.
2024-10-25Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation substantiated that a facility staff member sexually abused a resident; the resident reported the staff member raped her, and a sexual assault exam found male DNA in her vaginal tract, though the sample was insufficient for conclusive matching to the accused staff member's DNA. The investigation included interviews with facility staff, family, law enforcement, and hospital personnel, review of facility records and schedules, and observation of care on the unit. The staff member denied any sexual contact with the resident.
“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(s): The alleged perpetrator (AP), facility staff member, sexually abused the resident when the resident reported the AP raped her. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident reported the AP raped her. The DNA collected during the resident’s sexual assault exam identified a Y chromosome (male) was present. The DNA was tested against the AP’s DNA and the results came back indicating the resident’s sample was not adequate to complete further DNA testing. The AP denied any sexual contact with the resident. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted family, law enforcement, a case manager and hospital staff. The investigation included review of the resident facility record, facility internal investigation, personnel files, staff schedules, related facility policy and procedures, hospital records and law enforcement report. Also, the investigator observed staff and resident interactions and care provided on the unit. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit with diagnoses including dementia with severe psychotic disturbance, early onset Alzheimer's disease, and aphasia (communication and comprehension disorder). The resident's service plan included assistance with all personal care, including mobility, toileting, dressing, and bathing. The resident's assessment indicated an overall decline in physical and cognitive health, including weight loss, frequent falls, and elected hospice services. A law enforcement report indicated they were called to the facility for a possible sexual assault. The resident was in her apartment with a visitor and pointed to the bed and stated something bad happened. With further questions, the resident was asked if a staff member hurt her, and the resident mumbled yes. The resident was asked if the staff member was female, and the resident stated no. The resident was asked if the staff member was male, and the resident stated yes. The resident was asked if the specific AP by name hurt her, and after hesitation, the resident stated yes. The resident was asked if she was hurt, "down here," pointing to the pelvic area, and the resident stated yes. The resident was asked if the AP raped her, and the resident stated yes. The police report indicated leadership staff at the facility stated the AP was the primary caregiver for the resident that morning. The AP’s duties included bathing, “cleaning up after,” and monitoring the resident, so the AP was alone in the room with the resident that day. The officer provided options for the resident and family to investigate further, and the resident was taken to the hospital for a sexual assault exam. The sexual assault exam notes indicated the resident’s family was present for the exam. The resident was primarily non-verbal through the exam and provided some soft, brief responses to questioning. The family was asked to recount the events. Family stated when they were in the residents’ room visiting, the resident pointed to the bed across the room and gestured her hand in a circle around the area and said, “Something bad happened.” Family stated the resident looked scared, “It was a different scared look, like she didn’t want to say something.” Family asked the resident if someone hurt her and she said yes. Family stated there were only 2 males that worked at the facility and the resident identified it was the AP. The family stated they asked the resident how he hurt her and when the resident did not answer family gestured to the pelvic area and asked if the AP raped her, and the resident stated yes. The family stated when they assisted the resident to the bathroom the previous day she complained of vaginal pain and was still having some pain on exam. During the vaginal exam light creamy greenish tinted fluid was present at the cervix os (the opening between the cervix and the upper part of the uterus). Swabs were collected for DNA testing. The resident was seen by a provider approximately one week following the sexual assault exam. The notes indicated the resident has been nonverbal so much of the history was obtained by family who was present at the follow up visit. Family stated the resident had personality changes in the past months. The resident had an increase in crying and social isolation. The family member reported the resident was no longer complaining of pelvic or perineal pain, but seemed to be, “more scared and sad more than anything.” The note indicated nursing staff confirmed the resident’s mood had been unusual from her baseline personality which include crying more and declining to come out of her room more often. Since the resident returned from the hospital the resident seemed calmer when not being cared for by male staff, but, “still withdrawn and isolating following trauma.” Law enforcement stated the DNA from the resident vaginal swab taken during the sexual assault exam returned with a Y chromosome in the resident's vaginal tract. Law enforcement stated a Y chromosome indicated male DNA was present and the AP was contacted to provide samples for testing to see if the Y chromosome matched the AP's DNA. The AP provided a sample of DNA. The final DNA result came back indicating the residents DNA sample was inadequate to determine if the Y chromosome was a match to the AP. Law enforcement indicated a Y chromosome in the initial vaginal DNA sample indicated there was male contact, however, due to the insufficient resident sample no further DNA testing could be completed. During interview with the AP, he stated he did not sexually touch the resident. When interviewed family stated they believed the AP raped the resident. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. Substantiated: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, Subdivision 19. “Substantiated” means a preponderance of evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred. 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. Vulnerable Adult interviewed: Yes. Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes. Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Yes. he Action taken by facility: The facility investigated the incident, made appropriate reports, required the AP remain on leave until law enforcement completed investigation. In addition, the facility provided two staff members for cares and female staff as able. 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. 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 the 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 Roseville Police Department PRINTED: 10/25/2024 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.
1 older inspection from 2023 are not shown in the free view.
1 older inspection (2023–2023) are available with a premium membership.
Other facilities in Ramsey County.
Other memory care facilities in Ramsey County with similar care offerings.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
No published reviews yet. Use the button above to share your experience.
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.