Assisted Living at North Ridge

Last evaluation

January 16, 2025

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

4 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

1 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

7 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (January 16, 2025, state report 22K011)

MDH: “On March 13, 2025, through March 14, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a follow-up survey at the above provider to follow-up on orders issued pursuant to a survey completed on January 16, 2025.”

Survey completed March 14, 2025: 13 correction orders

• Tag 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
  Details

  Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”

• Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma (re-issued) scope/level letter F
  Details

  Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”

• Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records (re-issued) scope/level letter D
  Details

  Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”

• Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record (re-issued) scope/level letter F
  Details

  Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”

• Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
  Details

  Rule cited: “for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) provide smoke alarms outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms; (iii) provide smoke [...]”

Survey completed January 16, 2025: 13 correction orders

• Tag 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post information directing individuals to the Office of Health Facility Complaints (OHFC) at the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) if they had complaints about the facility or person providing services.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post information directing individuals to the Office of Health Facility Complaints (OHFC) at the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) if they had complaints about the facility or person providing services. [...]”

  Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”

• Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) containing required assessment content was completed on admission for three of four residents (R2, R5, R6).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) containing required assessment content was completed on admission for three of four residents (R2, R5, R6). [...]”

  Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”

• Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure competency evaluations

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure competency evaluations were documented for oral medication administration prior to providing services, for one of two unlicensed personnel (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”

  Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”

• Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure resident

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure resident records included documentation of services provided for three of three residents (R3, R4, R5). [...]”

  Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”

• Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms outside in the immediate vicinity of resident sleeping rooms and failed to provide interconnected smoke alarms so that the actuation of one alarm causes all alarms in the resident unit to actuate.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms outside in the immediate vicinity of resident sleeping rooms and failed to provide interconnected smoke alarms so that the actuation of one alarm causes all alarms in the resident unit to actuate. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

  Rule cited: “for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) provide smoke alarms outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms; (iii) provide smoke [...]”

From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.

Fines assessed by MDH

• Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $3,000.00

Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• April 19, 2024 · report HL202572344M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) financially exploited the resident by taking the resident's blank checks and writing checks to herself. The total amount was $3,600.”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated.”

  “The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation substantiated (individual responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP took the resident's checks, forged the resident's signature, and wrote herself three checks.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility reported to the police, the AP was placed on suspension pending investigation and subsequently her employment was terminated.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”

  Survey completed March 27, 2024: 3 correction orders

  • Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document services were provided as identified on the service plan for one of one resident (R1).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document services were provided as identified on the service plan for one of one resident (R1). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one [...]”

    Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”

  • Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to assess one of one resident (R1) for change of condition related to mobility, as well as failed to implement interventions to prevent skin breakdown.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to assess one of one resident (R1) for change of condition related to mobility, as well as failed to implement interventions to prevent skin breakdown. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”

  • Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1 and R2) was free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1 and R2) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred. Regarding HL202579486M and R1 the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”

• April 19, 2024 · report HL202579486M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when unlicensed caregivers failed to report to the nurse the resident's refusal to remove the brace, resulting in a wound on the back of his right leg.”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”

  “The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident began using used a knee brace and, while the physical therapy department was aware of this, the resident's knee brace was not incorporated into his nursing services. Later, when the knee brace was removed in an attempt to provide the resident a bath, the resident had developed an infected wound on his leg and required hospitalization.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility sent the resident to the hospital when the wound was discovered.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

  Survey completed March 27, 2024: 3 correction orders

  • Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document services were provided as identified on the service plan for one of one resident (R1).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document services were provided as identified on the service plan for one of one resident (R1). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one [...]”

    Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”

  • Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to assess one of one resident (R1) for change of condition related to mobility, as well as failed to implement interventions to prevent skin breakdown.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to assess one of one resident (R1) for change of condition related to mobility, as well as failed to implement interventions to prevent skin breakdown. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”

  • Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1 and R2) was free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1 and R2) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred. Regarding HL202579486M and R1 the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”

• October 2, 2023 · report HL202577384M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when the resident left the locked memory care unit and walked outside unsupervised. The resident fell on the sidewalk, causing a laceration (cut) on the resident's face and fractures in her right wrist.”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”

  “The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident left the locked memory care unit and went outside the facility front doors. The resident was found outside on the sidewalk by people who were driving by. The resident cut her chin and sustained a right radius and ulnar styloid (wrist) fractures. Staff did not know how the resident was able to leave the locked facility. The residents record contained no documentation the resident had been checked on by staff the day of the incident. An equal opportunity employer.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility posted signs on the locked unit doors reminding staff to ensure residents were unable to exit the locked unit. The facility also educated staff on how to properly use locked doors and ensuring only staff working on the unit were allowed in the locked units.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

  Survey completed August 23, 2023: 1 correction order

  • Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (R1 and R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (R1 and R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”

• October 2, 2023 · report HL202578024M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility financially exploited a resident when the resident's narcotic medication went missing from the storage compartment located at the facility's front desk.”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated.”

  “The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation substantiated (facility responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident's hydrocodone (a narcotic medication) was delivered to the facility by the pharmacy and signed for by facility staff. The medication was then placed in a locked cupboard at the front desk, and the key to the cupboard was left in the open and unattended where anyone could have accessed it. The facility was unable to locate the residents 120 hydrocodone the pharmacy delivered to the facility. An equal opportunity employer.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility changed the process of the handling of narcotic medications and educated the staff on proper handling of narcotic medications.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

  Survey completed August 23, 2023: 1 correction order

  • Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (R1 and R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (R1 and R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”

Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.

MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 195 residents; larger communities are evaluated and reported on more often, so read counts with size in mind. Source: Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division, data as of September 28, 2026. Always visit in person and ask the community about anything listed here.