New Perspective Waconia.
New Perspective Waconia is Grade C, ranked in the top 47% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Jan 2026.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Ranked against 138 Minnesota facilities.
ALF memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better. Source: Minnesota Dept. of Health · Health Regulation Division.
FACILITY WATCH · BETA
New Perspective Waconia 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 New Perspective Waconia's record and state requirements.
Minnesota Department of Health conducted an inspection on January 21, 2026, and found zero deficiencies across all regulatory standards — can you walk us through how the community prepares for state inspections and maintains compliance with Minn. Stat. ch. 144G dementia care requirements?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Three complaints were filed with MDH during the inspection period on file — were any of those complaints substantiated, and can you share the written corrective action plans or response documentation the facility prepared in response to those complaints?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The facility holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minn. Stat. ch. 144G — can you provide a copy of the written dementia care program and explain how staff competency in dementia-specific care is documented and verified?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every MDH visit, verbatim.
4 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-01-21Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection was conducted at New Perspective Waconia on January 21, 2026, and one violation was found related to fire protection and physical environment under Minnesota state law. The facility was assessed a $500 fine for this violation and must document the corrective actions taken within the timeframe specified by the state.
Full inspector notes
correction orders and document the actions taken to comply in the facility's records. The Department reserves the right to return to the facility at any time should the Department receive a complaint or deem it necessary to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of residents in your care. STATE CORRECTIO NORDERS The enclosed State Form documents the state correction orders. MDH documents state licensing correction orders using federal software. Tag numbers are assigned to Minnesota state statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The assigned tag number appears in the far left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The state statute number and the corresponding text of the state statute out of compliance are listed in the "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" column. This column also includes the findings that are in violation of the state statute after the statement, "This MN Requirement is not met as evidenced by . . ." IMPOSITION OF FINES In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 4, fines and enforcement actions may be imposed based on the level and scope of the violations and may be imposed immediately with no opportunity to correct the violation first as follows: Level 1: no fines or enforcement; Level 2: a fine of $500 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20; Level 3: a fine of $1,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20; An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISE D09/13/2021 New Perspective Waconia February 5, 2026 Page 2 Level 4: a fine of $3,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20; Level 5: a fine of $5,000 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20. Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, the following fines are assessed pursuant to this survey: St - 0 - 0775 - 144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment - $500.00 The refor e, in accor danc e wit h Minn. Sta t. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.999 9, the total amount you are assessed is $500.00. You will be invoiced approximately 30 days after receipt of this notice, subject to appeal . DOCUMENTATIO ONF ACTION TO COMPLY In accorda nce with Min n. Stat. § 144G.30, Sub d. 5(c), th e lic ens ee mus t docum ent ac tions taken t o 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). CORRECTIO NORDER RECONSIDERATIO PNROCESS 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 REQUESTIN GA HEARING Alternatively, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 5(d), an assisted living provider that has been assessed a fine under this subdivision has a right to a reconsideration or a hearing under this section and chapter 14. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 144G.20, Subd. 14 and Subd. 18, a request for a hearing must be in writing and received by the Department of Health within 15 business days of the correction order receipt date. The request must contain a brief and plain statement describing each matter or issue contested and any new information you believe constitutes a defense or mitigating New Perspective Waconia February 5, 2026 Page 3 factor. To submit a hearing request, please visit: https: / / forms. web. health. state. mn. us/ form/ HRDAppealsForm To appe al fi nes via re cons iderat ion , pl ease follow the procedu r e outl ined abo ve. Plea se no te tha t you may re que st a rec onside rati on or a hearing, bu t not bot h. If you wish to cont est ta gs with out fine s 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 conv enien ce at thi s link: https: / / forms. office.com/ g/ Bm5uQEpHVa. Your inpu t is import ant 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: KellyT. horson@state. mn.us Telephone: 320-223-7336 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 HHH PRINTED: 02/ 05/ 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: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 30415 01/ 21/ 2026 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 500 CHERRY STREET NEW PERSPECTIVE WACONIA WACONIA, MN 55387 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. SL30415016 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On January 20, 2026, through January 21, 2026, STATES, "PROVIDER' S PLAN OF the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a CORRECTION. " THIS APPLIES TO full survey at the above provider and the following FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS correction orders are issued. At the time of the WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. survey, there were 106 residents; 96 receiving services under the Assisted Living Facility with THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO 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. 0 775 144G. 45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical 0 775 SS= F environment Each assisted living facility must comply with the LABORATORY DIRECTOR' S OR PROVIDER/ SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE' S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 O41I11 If continuation sheet 1 of 4 PRINTED: 02/ 05/ 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: ______________________ B.
2025-07-08Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
Minnesota Department of Health investigated a complaint that the facility neglected a resident by incorrectly discontinuing an anti-seizure medication, which allegedly led to a seizure and hospitalization. The investigation found that while one anti-seizure medication (Lamotrigine) was discontinued in error approximately one month before the resident's hospitalization, it could not be determined whether this medication error caused the seizure, as the resident was on multiple seizure medications being adjusted by a neurologist at the time. The MDH determination was inconclusive, meaning there was insufficient evidence to conclude that neglect did or did not occur.
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 facility neglected the resident when the resident’s seizure medication was incorrectly discontinued resulting in a seizure and hospitalization. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. Although one of the resident’s anti-seizure medications was incorrectly discontinued, it could not be determined whether the medication error caused the resident to have a seizure. The resident was prescribed multiple anti-seizure medications and adjustments were made to those medications during the time frame. One month after the medication error, the resident experienced an uncontrolled seizure that required an evaluation at a hospital. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted the primary care provider. The investigation included review of the resident records, hospital records, facility internal investigation, personnel files, staff schedules, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed staff and resident interactions. The resident resided in an assisted living facility. The resident’s diagnoses included generalized idiopathic (unknown cause) epilepsy (seizures) and Alzheimer’s disease. The resident’s service plan included assistance with medication management. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident was cognitively alert and had a history of seizures. Review of the resident’s medical record indicated on admission to the facility, the resident’s anti-seizure medications included Depakote (medication used to treat seizures) 250 milligrams (mg) take 2 tablets twice a day, Lacosamide (medication used to control and prevent seizures) 100 mg one-half tablet twice a day, Lamotrigine (used to treat several conditions, mainly epilepsy and bipolar disorder) 150 mg, one tablet twice a day, and Keppra (used to treat seizures) 1000 mg one tablet twice a day. The medical record indicated on admission to the facility, the resident’s medical provider increased the resident’s dose of Keppra and discontinued Lacosamide. However, in the days following the Lacosamide being discontinued, facility staff also discontinued Lamotrigine. The facility’s internal investigation indicated the resident began having seizures one day. The resident was transported to the hospital. The facility investigation indicated a medication error occurred when an anti-seizure medication (Lamotrigine) was discontinued. Hospital records indicated the resident was admitted to the hospital for seizures. During the resident’s hospitalization, it was determined when the resident resided at the assisted living, the resident’s lamotrigine had been discontinued in error approximately one month prior to the hospital admission. The hospital records further indicated the resident had a longstanding history of a seizure disorder. A neurologist (a medical doctor who specializes in diagnosing, treating, and managing disorders of the brain and nervous system) made attempts to change the resident’s anti-seizure medications for better control of the resident’s seizures prior to the hospitalization. During an interview, a nurse stated the resident was on multiple anti-seizure medications. Approximately one month prior to the resident being hospitalized, one of the resident’s anti-seizure medications (Lamotrigine) was “accidentally” discontinued. The nurse stated after the incident, the facility educated staff on medication administration, refills and policies and procedures for medication orders. A competency evaluation was completed for all staff on starting and discontinuing medication orders. During an interview, leadership stated the resident had a history of seizures. At admission to the facility, the resident’s medications were being adjusted and a nurse “inadvertently” discontinued one of the resident’s anti-seizure medications (Lamotrigine). The procedure for discontinuing medications had been changed and education for the nurse had been completed. Facility wide audits were completed to ensure medications were discontinued appropriately. During an interview, the primary care provider stated the resident had a complicated health history and required multiple medications for seizures. When the resident was admitted to the facility approximately one month prior to the hospitalization, the resident’s neurologist was actively adjusting the resident’s anti-seizure medication. The resident had a seizure approximately three weeks prior to admitting into the facility. The primary provider stated it would be difficult to determine if the anti-seizure medication being discontinued caused the resident’s seizures and hospitalization. An attempt to interview the resident’s neurologist was unsuccessful. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect 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. 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: Yes. Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes. Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Not Applicable. the Action taken by facility: When the resident began having seizures, the facility transferred the resident to the hospital. The facility provided education to the nurse, completed audits of medications that were discontinued and changed the procedure when discontinuing medications with the pharmacy. 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: 07/14/2025 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 _____________________________ 30415 06/25/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 500 CHERRY STREET NEW PERSPECTIVE WACONIA WACONIA, MN 55387 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 June 25, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health initiated an investigation of complaint #HL304153122M/#HL304155667C. No correction orders are issued. LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 K8BJ11 If continuation sheet 1 of 1
2024-10-24Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
The Minnesota Department of Health investigated a complaint that an unlicensed staff member took narcotic pain medication (Oxycodone) from residents for personal use, and substantiated financial exploitation of five residents. The investigation found a pattern of the staff member dispensing significantly higher amounts of Oxycodone during night shifts when working, with some residents denying they received the medication at those times, and law enforcement was contacted. The staff member was determined to be individually responsible for the maltreatment.
“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): A facility unlicensed staff member, alleged perpetrator (AP), financially exploited six residents, resident #1, resident #2, resident #3, resident #4, resident #5, and resident #6, when the AP took narcotic medication from the six residents for personal use. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP financially exploited resident #1, resident #2, resident #3, resident #4, and resident #5. There was a pattern of increased dispensing of Oxycodone (opioid narcotic) to resident #1, resident #2, resident #3, resident #4, and resident #5 by the AP during the night shift when the AP worked. In addition, resident #1, resident #3 and resident #4 denied receiving any Oxycodone at night. It could not be determined if the AP financially exploited resident #6. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted law enforcement and family members of the residents. The investigation included review of the resident records, facility internal investigation, personnel files, staff schedules, law enforcement report, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed staff and resident interactions. Resident #1 resided in an assisted living facility. Resident #1’s diagnoses included low back pain and chronic pain. Resident #1’s service plan included assistance with medication administration. Resident #1’s provider order included Oxycodone (opioid narcotic) 5 milligram (mg) one tablet twice daily as needed for pain. Resident #2 resided in an assisted living memory care unit. Resident #2’s diagnoses included dementia and pain. Resident #2’s service plan included assistance with medication administration. Resident #2’s provider order included Oxycodone 5mg, ½ tablet every 12 hours as needed for pain. Resident #3 resided in an assisted living facility. Resident #3’s diagnoses included mild cognitive impairment, hip, and low back pain. Resident #3’s service plan included assistance with medication administration. Resident #3’s provider order included Oxycodone 5mg, ½ tablet twice daily as needed for pain. Resident #4 resided in an assisted living facility. Resident #4’s diagnoses included osteoarthritis and pain. Resident 4’s service plan included assistance with medication administration. Resident #4’s provider order included Oxycodone 5mg, one tablet every six hours as needed for severe pain. Resident #5 resided in an assisted living memory care unit. Resident #5’s diagnoses included Alzheimer’s disease, pain in the right shoulder, low back, and right leg. Resident #5’s service plan included assistance with medication administration. Resident #5’s provider order included Oxycodone 5mg, 1 tablet three times a day and every three hours as needed for pain. Resident #1’s medication administration records were reviewed for two months during the time frame the AP was employed and dispensing medications at the facility. During the first month, resident #1 received two doses of as needed Oxycodone and none were administered during an overnight shift. The second month, when the AP was dispensing medications, resident #1 received 10 doses of as needed Oxycodone. The AP gave resident #1 four of the 10 doses of the Oxycodone during the overnight shift. Except for the AP, resident #1 did not request or require an Oxycodone during an overnight shift. Resident #2’s medication administration records were reviewed for two months during the time frame the AP was dispensing medications at the facility. During the first month, resident #2 received one dose of as needed Oxycodone, none from the AP. The second month, resident #2 received eight doses of as needed Oxycodone. The AP gave seven of the eight doses of the Oxycodone on the overnight shift. The other dose given to resident #2 was not given on the overnight shift. Resident #3’s medication administration records were reviewed for two months during the time frame the AP was employed and dispensed medications at the facility. The first month, resident #3 received six doses of as needed Oxycodone. That month, the AP gave one of the two doses of Oxycodone to resident #3 on the overnight shift. The second month, resident #3 received 12 doses of as needed Oxycodone. The AP gave eight of the 12 doses Oxycodone to resident #3 on the overnight shift. The second month, the AP was the only staff to administer Oxycodone to resident #3 during the overnight shift. Resident #4’s medication administration records were reviewed for two months during the timeframe the AP was employed and dispensed medications at the facility. The first month, resident #4 received six doses of as needed Oxycodone. The AP gave resident #4, four of the six doses of as needed Oxycodone during an overnight shift. During the second month, resident #4 received 16 doses of as needed Oxycodone. The AP gave 12 of the 16 doses to resident #4 during the second month on the overnight shift. The AP was the only staff to dispense oxycodone to resident #4 during the overnight shift. Resident #5’s medication administration records were reviewed for two months during the timeframe the AP was employed and dispensed medications at the facility. The first month, resident #5 received two doses of as needed Oxycodone. The AP gave both doses of Oxycodone during an overnight shift. The second month, the AP gave resident #5, 15 of the 15 doses of Oxycodone during an overnight shift. The following month, when the AP was no longer employed by the facility, resident #5 did not receive any as needed Oxycodone. The facility investigation indicated there was an increase in administered as needed Oxycodone to several residents by the AP in a 12-day period the AP dispensed medications at the facility. The AP was the only staff providing medication administration during the night shift and the only staff with access to the key to the locked narcotic medications. During the investigation, Resident #1 and resident #3 who were able to be interviewed, stated they had not requested Oxycodone for the dates in question. The facility reviewed call light logs which confirmed the residents did not use their call lights to request Oxycodone. The investigation identified the AP consistently documented giving residents Oxycodone on the overnight shift and more than other staff. In addition, care staff working in the memory care stated only resident #6 required as needed Oxycodone medication, not resident #2 and resident #5 who also resided in the memory care unit. During an interview, resident #1 stated she used as needed Oxycodone on the days she showered because of her back pain. She never requested or took Oxycodone at night. Resident #1 stated her pain had not increased in the last two months. During an interview, resident #3 stated she usually used the Oxycodone medication during the day. Resident #3 could not recall when she last used Oxycodone medication at night. Resident #3 stated she did not frequently use the as needed Oxycodone medication. During an interview, resident #4 stated she had Oxycodone for pain but did not like taking it because it made her sick to her stomach. Resident #4 stated she did not need Oxycodone during the night for pain. During an interview, unlicensed staff member stated she noticed a couple of things that were unusual working a shift after the AP’s shift. First resident #2 and resident #5 received as needed Oxycodone one night documented by the AP for the exact same time. It was not common for resident #2 and resident #5 to request Oxycodone in the middle of the night. The unlicensed staff stated the AP started her shift walking with a limp because she hurt her knee but when the unlicensed staff member returned the following morning, the AP was talking and walking fast without a limp. Unlicensed staff member stated she reported her concerns to facility leadership. During an interview, facility leadership stated an unlicensed staff member reported the AP frequently gave as needed pain medications. Leadership stated they reviewed the as needed pain medication and found the AP gave more as needed pain medication, specifically Oxycodone than any other staff member.
2023-06-29Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection of New Perspective–Waconia on June 29, 2023, found a violation of the infection control program requirement under Minnesota law, resulting in a $500 fine. The facility must document the specific actions it took to correct this deficiency and ensure the problem does not occur again. The facility may request reconsideration or a hearing within 15 calendar days or 15 business days, respectively.
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. 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 An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISED 09/13/2021 New Perspective ‐ Waconia July 13, 2023 Page 2 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 ‐ 0510 ‐ 144g.41 Subd. 3 ‐ Infection Control Program ‐ $500.00 Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, the total amount you are assessed is $500.00. You will be invoiced approximately 30 days after receipt of this notice, subject to appeal. DOCUMENTATION OF ACTION TO COMPLY In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.30, Subd. 5(c), the licensee must document actions taken to comply with the correction orders within the time period outlined on the state form; however, plans of correction are not required to be submitted for approval. The correction order documentation should include the following: Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected related to the resident(s)/employee(s) identified in the correction order. Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected for all of the provider’s resident(s)/employees that may be affected by the noncompliance. Identify what changes to your systems and practices were made to ensure compliance with the specific statute(s). CORRECTION ORDER RECONSIDERATION PROCESS In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.32, Subd. 2, you may challenge the correction order(s) issued, including the level and scope, and any fine assessed through the correction order reconsideration process. The request for reconsideration must be in writing and received by 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. 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). New Perspective ‐ Waconia July 13, 2023 Page 3 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. Please note that you may request a reconsideration or 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, Jessie Chenze, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: jessie.chenze@state.mn.us Telephone: 218‐332‐5175 Fax: 651‐281‐9796 JMD PRINTED: 07/13/2023 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ 30415 B. WING _____________________________ 06/29/2023 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 500 CHERRY STREET NEW PERSPECTIVE - WACONIA WACONIA, MN 55387 (X4) ID SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES ID PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE TAG REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) TAG CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE 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. SL30415015-0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF On June 26, 2023, through June 29, 2023, the THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH survey at the above provider, and the following CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO correction orders are issued. At the time of the FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS survey, there were 100 active residents; 85 WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. residents 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 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. 0 470 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements 0 470 SS=F (11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 G8KO11 If continuation sheet 1 of 55 PRINTED: 07/13/2023 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ 30415 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 Carver County.
Other memory care facilities in Carver 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.