The Sanctuary at West St Paul.
The Sanctuary at West St Paul is Grade C, ranked in the top 45% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Nov 2025.
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
The Sanctuary at West St Paul 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 The Sanctuary at West St Paul's record and state requirements.
The most recent Minnesota Department of Health inspection was conducted on November 5, 2025 — can you walk us through what was reviewed during that visit and share any documentation of the findings?
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 — can you tell us whether any of 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 facility holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minnesota Statutes chapter 144G — can you provide a copy of the written dementia care program and explain how staff competency in dementia care is documented and verified?
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.
2025-11-05Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection of The Sanctuary at West St Paul was conducted on November 5, 2025, and found a violation of the facility's infection control program requirements. The facility was assessed a fine of $500 for this Level 2 violation and must document the actions it takes to correct the problem.
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; An equal opportunity employer . Letter ID: IS7N REVISE 0D9/13/2021 The Sanctuary at West St Paul Novembe r25, 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 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. The Sanctuary at West St Paul Novembe r25, 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, Jod iJohnson ,Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Jodi.Johnson@state.mn.us Telephone :507-344-2730 Fax :1-866-890-9290 CLN PRINTED: 11/26/2025 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 _____________________________ 32587 11/05/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 1746 OAKDALE AVENUE THE SANCTUARY AT WEST ST PAUL WEST SAINT PAUL, MN 55118 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. SL32587016-0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On November 3, 2025, through November 5, 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 165 residents; 162 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 SC7B11 If continuation sheet 1 of 32 PRINTED: 11/26/2025 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.
2025-07-02Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that a staff member at The Sanctuary at West St. Paul financially exploited a resident by convincing her to sell her car, but the Minnesota Department of Health determined the allegation was not substantiated because the resident received a fair price of $2,800, consulted with family about the sale, and did not incur a financial loss. The investigation found that while the staff member violated professional boundaries by conducting a personal financial transaction with the resident, this did not meet the legal definition of financial exploitation. The facility terminated the staff member's employment and provided refresher training to staff on appropriate boundaries.
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) financially exploited the resident when she convinced the resident to sign the resident’s automobile over to her. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was not substantiated. The AP violated professional boundaries when she arranged a financial transaction with the resident. However, the AP paid what the resident and her family considered to be a fair price for the car. The resident did not incur a financial loss, and the incident did not meet the definition of financial exploitation. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted family. The investigation included review of the resident records, the facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, personnel files, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed resident interactions with staff. The resident resided in an assisted living facility. The resident’s diagnoses included high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, and diabetes. The resident’s services included assistance with meals. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident was independent with most activities. The facility’s internal investigation indicated the AP punched out of work during lunch, got into the resident’s old car, picked up the resident at the front of the facility, and drove to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The AP paid the resident $2800, and the car’s ownership was transferred to the AP. The resident said she did not consider herself a vulnerable adult. She said she wanted to sell her car, so she did. Family members agreed $2800 was a good price for the car. The resident said she was not a victim of financial exploitation. When interviewed, a supervisor said the resident was very independent. The resident had received a new car, and one day a staff member reported she had seen the AP driving the resident from the facility in the resident’s old car. After the AP and resident returned, the AP said she and the resident went to the DMV to transfer ownership of the resident’s old car to the AP. The AP paid the resident $2800, which family members, who worked in the car industry, said was a good price for the car. When interviewed, the AP said she needed a car and entered an agreement with the resident to purchase her old one. They agreed on a price, and the resident transferred ownership of the car to the AP. When interviewed, a family member said the resident had consulted with family about the sale of her old car, and all agreed $2800 was a great price. The family member said the price was a much better deal for the resident than the AP. When interviewed, the resident said she received a new car so wanted to sell her old one. The resident sold her car to the AP, not having been aware that there were rules against such transactions between residents and staff members. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation 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. Financial exploitation: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 9 "Financial exploitation" means: (b) In the absence of legal authority a person: (1) willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult; (2) obtains for the actor or another the performance of services by a third person for the wrongful profit or advantage of the actor or another to the detriment of the vulnerable adult; (3) acquires possession or control of, or an interest in, funds or property of a vulnerable adult through the use of undue influence, harassment, duress, deception, or fraud; or (4) forces, compels, coerces, or entices a vulnerable adult against the vulnerable adult's will to perform services for the profit or advantage of another. Vulnerable Adult interviewed: Yes. Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes. Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Yes. the Action taken by facility: The facility provided refresher training to staff regarding appropriate boundaries. The AP’s employment was terminated. 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: 07/08/2025 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 _____________________________ 32587 06/03/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 1746 OAKDALE AVENUE THE SANCTUARY AT WEST ST PAUL WEST SAINT PAUL, MN 55118 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 3, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Minnesota Department of Health is Health initiated an investigation of complaint documenting the State Correction Orders #HL325875070C/#HL325872862M. No correction using federal software. Tag numbers have 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. 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 SUBDIVISION 1-3. LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 GE3311 If continuation sheet 1 of 1
2024-10-03Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that an unlicensed caregiver neglected a resident by transferring him from a recliner to a wheelchair with only one person assisting when the resident's service plan required two staff members for safety; during this transfer, the resident fell and sustained an ankle fracture requiring hospitalization and surgery. The caregiver was determined to be individually responsible for the maltreatment, as she did not follow the resident's plan of care, which directly resulted in the resident's injury.
“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, who is an unlicensed caregiver, neglected the resident when the alleged perpetrator did not follow the resident’s service plan. The alleged perpetrator transferred the resident with one assisted when the residents service plan indicated two assists for transfers. During the transfer, the resident fell, sustained an ankle fracture, and required hospitalization with surgical repair to address the fracture. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The alleged perpetrator was responsible for the maltreatment. The alleged perpetrator was not following the residents plan of care resulting in an injury to the resident. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigation included review of the resident record(s), facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, personnel files, staff schedules, and related facility policy and procedures. The resident resided in an assisted living facility. The resident’s diagnoses included left below the knee amputation, diabetes type 2, and neuropathy. The resident’s service plan indicated the resident required two staff to physically assist through transfers with the second person for safety. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident had mild cognitive impairment and refused help from others. Progress notes indicated the alleged perpetrator was transferring from a chair to the electric wheelchair with assist of one and the resident slipped while standing. The note indicated the resident went to a squatting position and his right ankle “snapped”. Afterwards the resident’s ankle was bleeding and not in the correct position. During an interview, the resident stated he can transfer from wheelchair to recliner by himself but needs two people to assist when he transfers from recliner to wheelchair. The resident stated during this incident he was transferring from the recliner to the wheelchair and should have had two people to assist but there was only one. The resident stated he asked the alleged perpetrator to get help, but the alleged perpetrator did not get anyone else. The resident stated he slid down between the recliner and wheelchair, one of his shoes gripped the carpet and his ankle broke. During an interview, the family member stated when the alleged perpetrator helped the resident transfer from the recliner to the wheelchair, the resident asked for another person to help. The family member stated the alleged perpetrator said to the resident we have done this before. The family member stated she would help and began getting up from her chair. The family member stated before she could get there to help, the resident lost strength in his legs and slid down the front of the recliner. The family member stated the resident’s shoes got caught and did not move and the resident’s ankle broke. The family member stated the alleged perpetrator had assisted the resident transfer before, they had a process down, and the family member sometimes helped. The family member stated it was an accident and not the alleged perpetrator’s fault. During an interview, the alleged perpetrator stated she was assigned to pass medications the evening of the incident. The alleged perpetrator stated there were several call lights going off so she told another caregiver she would answer the resident’s call light. The alleged perpetrator stated the resident was sitting in his recliner and wanted to transfer to his wheelchair. The alleged perpetrator stated she told the resident to wait so she could call another caregiver for help, but the resident was already rocking back and forth in the recliner in preparation to stand. The alleged perpetrator stated the resident’s wife tried to get to the resident and assist but it was too late, the resident had already stood up, then slid to the floor between the recliner and the wheelchair. The alleged perpetrator stated she heard a snap and when she looked, she saw the resident’s ankle was bleeding. The alleged perpetrator stated she immediately called 911. The alleged perpetrator stated the resident was a two-person transfer. The alleged perpetrator stated staff used phones to communicate with each other, but her phone was outside the residents’ room on the medication cart and the resident was already attempting to stand up. During an interview, a manager stated the alleged perpetrator said she transferred the resident with one staff. The manager stated the alleged perpetrator said she thought the two staff were for the resident’s behaviors and the wife would count as the second person for transfers. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect 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. 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: Yes. Action taken by facility: The facility investigated the incident and sent the resident to the hospital. The facility took corrective action with the alleged perpetrator. 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 https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/directory/provcompselect.html 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 Dakota County Attorney West St. Paul City Attorney West St. Paul Police Department PRINTED: 10/07/2024 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 _____________________________ 32587 09/26/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 1746 OAKDALE AVENUE THE SANCTUARY AT WEST ST PAUL WEST SAINT PAUL, MN 55118 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 CORRECTION using federal software. Tag numbers have ORDER 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." The issued pursuant to a complaint investigation. state Statute number and the corresponding text of the state Statute out Determination of whether a violation is 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 a Minnesota Statute contains several are in violation of the state requirement items, failure to comply with any of the items will after the statement, "This Minnesota be considered lack of compliance. requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators ' findings is the INITIAL COMMENTS: Time Period for Correction. #HL325873771C/#HL325873502M PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On September 26, 2024, the Minnesota STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF Department of Health conducted a complaint CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO investigation at the above provider, and the FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS following correction order is issued.
2 older inspections from 2022 are not shown in the free view.
2 older inspections (2022–2023) are available with a premium membership.
Other facilities in Dakota County.
Other memory care facilities in Dakota 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.