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 · Woodbury

New Perspective Woodbury.

New Perspective Woodbury is Grade C, ranked in the top 48% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Dec 2025.

ALF · Memory Care85 licensed beds · largeDementia-trained staff
2195 Century Avenue South · Woodbury, MN 55125LIC# ALRC:818
Limited Inspection History · fewer than 4 records in 3 years
Facility · Woodbury
New Perspective Woodbury
© Google Street Viewoperator? submit a photo →
A 85-bed ALF · Memory Care with one citation on file (Jan 2025).
Last inspection · Dec 2025 · citedSource · MDH
Licensed beds
85
Memory care
✓ Yes
Last inspection
Dec 2025
Last citation
Jan 2025
Operated by
Phone
§ 01 · Snapshot

A large home, reviewed on public record.

§ 02 · Peer Comparison

Ranked against 142 Minnesota facilities.

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

Severity rank
25th
Weighted citations per bed.
peer median
0
100
Repeat rank
100th
Repeat deficiencies as share of total.
peer median
0
100
Frequency rank
31th
Deficiencies per inspection.
peer median
0
100

FACILITY WATCH · BETA

New Perspective Woodbury 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.

10weighted score · 24 mo
Last citation: JAN 2025. Compared against peer median (dashed).
peer median
JAN 2025
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 New Perspective Woodbury's record and state requirements.

01 /

The facility holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minnesota Statutes chapter 144G — can you walk me through the written dementia care program and show me how it differs from the general assisted living services provided to residents without memory impairments?

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

02 /

Minnesota Department of Health records show three complaints were filed during the inspection period on file — were any of those complaints substantiated by MDH, and can you share the facility's internal corrective action plans or policy changes that resulted from those complaint investigations?

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

03 /

The most recent MDH inspection was conducted on December 19, 2025, and no deficiencies were cited — can you provide a copy of that inspection report and explain how the facility prepares for unannounced regulatory visits?

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

§ 06 · Full Inspection Record

Every MDH visit, verbatim.

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

3
reports on file
1
total deficiencies
2025-12-19
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

A routine inspection was conducted on December 19, 2025, and found one violation related to fire protection and physical environment under Minnesota's assisted living facility rules. The facility received a Level 2 fine of $500 for this violation and must document the corrective actions taken within the required timeframe.

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 - Woodbury February 4, 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 - Woodbury February 4, 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, Renee L. Anderson, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Renee. L.Anderson@state. mn.us Telephone: 651-201-5871 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 HHH PRINTED: 02/ 04/ 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 _____________________________ 31733 12/ 19/ 2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 2195 CENTURY AVENUE SOUTH NEW PERSPECTIVE - WOODBURY WOODBURY, MN 55125 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER' S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS- REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 000 Initial Comments 0 000 *****ATTENTION***** Minnesota Department of Health is documenting the State Correction Orders ASSISTED LIVING PROVIDER LICENSING using federal software. Tag numbers have CORRECTION ORDER( S) been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living 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 survey. 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. SL31733016- 0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On December 15, 2025, through December 19, STATES, "PROVIDER' S PLAN OF 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health CORRECTION. " THIS APPLIES TO conducted a change of ownership (CHOW) FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS survey at the above provider, and the following WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. orders are issued. At the time of the survey, there were 65 resident( s) ; 65 receiving services under THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO the Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION FOR license. 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 MMEK11 If continuation sheet 1 of 9 PRINTED: 02/ 04/ 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.

2025-01-14
Complaint Investigation
1 · Substantiated Finding

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that the facility neglected a resident with type 1 diabetes by failing to provide unlicensed caregivers with adequate instructions for administering short-acting insulin, which resulted in two episodes of low blood sugar and hospitalizations. A pharmacy error caused the resident to miss long-acting insulin doses, but that error alone was not determined to be the facility's responsibility. The facility did not update insulin administration instructions to staff after either incident occurred.

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

MDH substantiated maltreatment or licensing violation finding

Full inspector notes

Finding: Substantiated, facility 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 facility neglected the resident when insulin was not given per order causing hospitalization. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated with facility responsibility. While it was true the resident did miss doses of long-acting insulin due to a pharmacy error this did not result in neglect. However, the facility did neglect the resident when unlicensed caregivers were not provided with sufficient instructions for the administration of short-acting insulin resulting in two instances of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and hospitalization. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted the pharmacy and the resident’s family member. The investigation included review of the resident record, pharmacy records, facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, staff schedules, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed unlicensed personnel interact with residents. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit. The resident’s diagnoses included type 1 diabetes. The resident’s service plan included medication administration and blood sugar monitoring. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident used a wheeled walker for ambulation and was alert to person only. The resident medical record indicated the resident received hospice services at the assisted living facility. Long-Acting Insulin One day a concern arose as the resident did not receive long-acting insulin dose as ordered by her medical provider. An internal investigation indicated an error occurred at the contracted pharmacy. It was discovered that a pharmacy technician reconciled an order that was sent fifteen days prior which cancelled out the current order for the scheduled long-acting insulin. This incident occurred on a weekend and the resident missed the Friday and Saturday scheduled doses of long-acting insulin. The triage nurse was notified on the third day, the error was identified, the long-acting insulin order was rescheduled, and the resident received the ordered dose of long-acting insulin on Sunday. The resident was transferred to the hospital for treatment and returned after 2 days. The residents EMAR indicated there was no order for the long- acting insulin for unlicensed caregivers to administer on Friday and Saturday, the Sunday dose was administered after the error was discovered. During an interview with the pharmacy representative, it was found a pharmacy technician processed an order received fifteen days earlier, which caused the current order for long-acting insulin to be discontinued. This action removed the order for long-acting insulin for unlicensed caregivers to administer. The error caused a review of current process and updates to the process was made. The pharmacy representative stated there had been no further errors or issues similar to this since the updates were made. MDH determined that this issue did not result in neglect. Short-Acting Insulin The resident’s progress notes indicated on one evening before the evening meal, the resident was found to have slid to the floor in her apartment and was experiencing what looked like seizure activity. The resident was transferred by emergency medical services to the hospital. The progress notes later indicated the resident had a blood sugar level of 89 on that day before the evening meal and was given 6 units of insulin. The resident’s electronic medication administration record (EMAR) indicated the resident’s insulin order was to give 6 units of insulin if the blood sugar level was 100-150 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter). The resident’s comprehensive assessment indicated the resident needed an escort to meals due to the resident experience trouble remembering to go after blood sugar check and insulin. The resident’s progress notes indicated the resident remained hospitalized for two days then returned to the assisted living facility on the evening of the third day. The resident was transferred by emergency medical services to the hospital again the following morning for hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). After the resident returned from the hospital, the provider changed the order for the short-acting insulin to 5 units before each meal if the blood sugar level was greater than 120 mg/dL. Two days later, the resident’s progress note indicated the resident’s blood sugar was 59 mg/dL. The EMAR indicated the resident was administered 5 units of insulin. The resident was later given sugar tablets, juice, and a meal. The resident’s blood sugar was monitored and did not require hospitalization for this incident. A review of the resident’s service plan did not indicate the facility changed the insulin administration instructions were provided to unlicensed caregivers after either incident. During an interview, the nurse stated the EMAR order is reflective of what the medical provider ordered and additional orders clarifying the directions would have to come from the medical provider. The nurse stated no other orders clarifying the instructions were obtained. 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. (4) an individual makes an error in the provision of therapeutic conduct to a vulnerable adult which does not result in injury or harm which reasonably requires medical or mental health care; or (5) an individual makes an error in the provision of therapeutic conduct to a vulnerable adult that results in injury or harm, which reasonably requires the care of a physician, and: (i) the necessary care is provided in a timely fashion as dictated by the condition of the vulnerable adult; (ii) if after receiving care, the health status of the vulnerable adult can be reasonably expected, as determined by the attending physician, to be restored to the vulnerable adult's preexisting condition; (iii) the error is not part of a pattern of errors by the individual; (iv) if in a facility, the error is immediately reported as required under section 626.557, and recorded internally in the facility; (v) if in a facility, the facility identifies and takes corrective action and implements measures designed to reduce the risk of further occurrence of this error and similar errors; and (vi) if in a facility, the actions required under items (iv) and (v) are sufficiently documented for review and evaluation by the facility and any applicable licensing, certification, and ombudsman agency. Vulnerable Adult interviewed: No, due to cognitive impairment Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Not Applicable Action taken by facility: The facility investigated the incident and provided additional education to unlicensed care givers. Action taken by the Minnesota Department of Health: The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance. To view a copy of the Statement of Deficiencies and/or correction orders, please visit: https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/directory/provcompselect.html If you are viewing this report on the MDH website, please see the attached Statement of Deficiencies. You may also call 651-201-4200 to receive a copy via mail or email cc: The Office of Ombudsman for Long Term Care The Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Washington County Attorney Woodbury City Attorney Woodbury Police Department PRINTED: 01/15/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ C B.

2025-01-02
Complaint Investigation
No findings

Plain-language summary

The Minnesota Department of Health investigated a complaint that the facility neglected a resident by failing to administer bowel medications, causing the resident to go several days without a bowel movement and experience increased pain. The investigation found the allegation was not substantiated because the facility coordinated with and followed the care plan developed by the resident's hospice provider, who was responsible for managing the resident's symptoms, and hospice visit notes did not indicate the resident experienced gastrointestinal distress. No further action was taken.

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 facility neglected the resident when bowel medications were not given, and the resident went several days without a bowel movement and experienced increased pain. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. The facility coordinated care with and followed the orders and plan of care developed by the hospice provider responsible for the resident’s symptom management. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted the hospice provider, and family members. The investigation included review of the resident record, death record, facility incident reports, staff schedules, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed interactions between residents and facility staff members during an onsite visit. The resident resided in an assisted living memory care unit. The resident’s diagnoses included end stage heart disease and dementia. The resident’s service plan included assistance with medication administration. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident’s condition was declining and receiving end of life care from hospice. The hospice plan of care indicated the hospice team was responsible for the resident’s symptom management and care needs. A concern arose regarding care not addressed by facility caregivers indicating the resident had not had a bowel movement for several days. The hospice nurse visit notes indicated the resident’s family members notified the hospice nurse of the lack of bowel movement in last 7 days. The same note indicated the hospice nurse collaborated with the facility nurse and hospice made order changes for additional medications to address possible constipation including a suppository to “have on hand”. A review of the medical record did not identify further instruction or direction to administer bowel suppository medication. A review of the hospice visit notes following did not indicate gastrointestinal distress was identified by the hospice team. During an interview, the hospice nurse stated it is normal practice for hospice to document effectiveness of orders written, however the hospice nurse found no follow up on effectiveness of the bowel medication orders. The hospice nurse stated the hospice nurse would monitor for other symptoms to determine the comfort level for the resident, such as abdominal discomfort. The hospice nurse stated the lack of follow up documentation would indicate the resident did not exhibit symptoms of discomfort related to a lack of bowel movement. During an interview, the facility nurse stated services to track bowel movements or meal intake are not provided per the facility’s Uniform Disclosure of Assisted Living Services & Amenities (UDALSA), and if the residents assessment indicated this was required, the recommendation would have been given as an order from the hospice team. A review of the resident’s medical record did not identify an order or recommendation from hospice to the facility to monitor bowel tracking. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect 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. 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. (5) an individual makes an error in the provision of therapeutic conduct to a vulnerable adult that results in injury or harm, which reasonably requires the care of a physician, and: (i) the necessary care is provided in a timely fashion as dictated by the condition of the vulnerable adult; (ii) if after receiving care, the health status of the vulnerable adult can be reasonably expected, as determined by the attending physician, to be restored to the vulnerable adult's preexisting condition; (iii) the error is not part of a pattern of errors by the individual; (iv) if in a facility, the error is immediately reported as required under section 626.557, and recorded internally in the facility; (v) if in a facility, the facility identifies and takes corrective action and implements measures designed to reduce the risk of further occurrence of this error and similar errors; and (vi) if in a facility, the actions required under items (iv) and (v) are sufficiently documented for review and evaluation by the facility and any applicable licensing, certification, and ombudsman agency. Vulnerable Adult interviewed: No, the resident expired Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Not Applicable the Action taken by facility: The facility notified the hospice provider of resident updates and changes in condition. 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: 01/03/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ C B. WING _____________________________ 31733 12/17/2024 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 2195 CENTURY AVENUE SOUTH NEW PERSPECTIVE - WOODBURY WOODBURY, MN 55125 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 December 17, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health initiated an investigation of complaint #HL317338795C /#HL317336101M. No correction orders are issued. LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 COHJ11 If continuation sheet 1 of 1

2 older inspections from 2022 are not shown in the free view.

2 older inspections (20222023) are available with a premium membership.

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.