Assisted Living
Barnes Care, East Highway 61
154 East Highway 61, Esko, MN 55733 · Map
Licensed for 14 residents · BARNES CARE
Barnes Care, East Highway 61 is a state-licensed assisted living community in Esko, Minnesota. It is licensed for 14 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
This community does not publish its prices.
Area costs
Lilisity’s independent report
What the public record shows
Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.
License
Active, 14 residents
Assisted Living Facility 425435, current license dated May 1, 2026. Licensee BARNES CARE.
Nearest emergency room
6.4 miles
Community Memorial Hospital.
Side by side with nearby communities
The 4 nearest communities that offer assisted living, by straight-line distance. Prices are starting prices each community publishes; we never show estimates.
| Community | Distance | Licensed capacity | Published starting price | License | Inspection citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barnes Care, East Highway 61 this community | 14 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Plainview Estates | 1.6 mi | 8 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Barnes Care, 56 West Highway 61 | 2.0 mi | 10 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Barnes Care, 58 West Highway 61 | 2.0 mi | 10 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Plainview Estates | 4.8 mi | 8 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- January 15, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (January 15, 2025, state report 2SOV11)
MDH: “On January 13, 2025, through January 15, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed January 15, 2025: 19 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. 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 is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed by one of three unlicensed personnel (ULP-G) while providing direct care to residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed by one of three unlicensed personnel (ULP-G) while providing direct care to residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”
- Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content and failed to post an EPP prominently.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content and failed to post an EPP prominently. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”
- 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 keep the facility in compliance with the Minnesota Fire Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to keep the facility in compliance with the Minnesota Fire Code. The deficient conditions have the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
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 [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b-f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and the annual training on the fire safety and evacuation plan was not being completed for residents and documented at new hire and semi-annually for employees.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and the annual training on the fire safety and evacuation plan was not being completed for residents and documented at new hire and semi-annually for employees. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
Show all 19
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study (BGS) was submitted and a clearance was received in affiliation with the assisted living licensee's current health facility identification (HFID 29535) for one of five employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study (BGS) was submitted and a clearance was received in affiliation with the assisted living licensee's current health facility identification (HFID 29535) for one of five employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H). This had the potential to affect all 14 residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
- Tag 1560: 144G.64 (a, b, c) TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide in written or electronic form to residents, families, or other persons who request it, a description of the dementia care training program, the categories of employees trained, the frequency of training, and the basic topics covered.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide in written or electronic form to residents, families, or other persons who request it, a description of the dementia care training program, the categories of employees trained, the frequency of training, and the basic topics covered. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(5) new employees may satisfy the initial training requirements by producing written proof of previously completed required training within the past 18 months. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted assessments with the uniform assessment tool that included all required content for two of two residents (R7, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted assessments with the uniform assessment tool that included all required content for two of two residents (R7, R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure service plans were revised to include provided services for three of three residents (R2, R6, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans were revised to include provided services for three of three residents (R2, R6, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) prepared in writing specific
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) prepared in writing specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions for two of two residents (R7, R2) 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 is issued at a [...]”
Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medication was given per manufacturer's instructions for two of three residents (R2, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medication was given per manufacturer's instructions for two of three residents (R2, R4). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure medication was administered as ordered for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1830: 144G.71 Subd. 14 Renewal of prescriptions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to renew prescriptions at least every 12 months for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to renew prescriptions at least every 12 months for one of two residents (R2). 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) and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred [...]”
Rule cited: “Prescriptions must be renewed at least every 12 months or more frequently as indicated by the assessment in subdivision 2. Prescriptions for controlled substances must comply with chapter 152.”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the medication was secured in a locked area for two of four residents (R7, R8).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the medication was secured in a locked area for two of four residents (R7, R8). 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 a pattern scope (when more than a limited number of residents are affected, [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration date for time sensitive medications for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration date for time sensitive medications for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R2) who had treatments managed by the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R2) who had treatments managed by the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 1950: 144G.72 Subd. 4 Administration of treatments and therapy Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) prepared in writing specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions for three of three residents (R2, R4, R7) receiving treatments.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) prepared in writing specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions for three of three residents (R2, R4, R7) receiving treatments. [...]”
Rule cited: “Ordered or prescribed treatments or therapies must be administered by a nurse, physician, or other licensed health professional authorized to perform the treatment or therapy, or may be delegated or assigned to unlicensed personnel by the licensed health [...]”
- Tag 1960: 144G.72 Subd. 5 Documentation of administration of treatments Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure treatments or therapies were administered as prescribed for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure treatments or therapies were administered as prescribed for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”
- Tag 1970: 144G.72 Subd. 6 Treatment and therapy orders Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of two residents (R2) who received treatments managed by the provider.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of two residents (R2) who received treatments managed by the provider. [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”
- Tag 2410: 144G.91 Subd. 13 Personal and treatment privacy Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure staff knocked before entering resident rooms for two of four staff (licensed assisted living director/clinical nurse supervisor (LALD/CNS)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff knocked before entering resident rooms for two of four staff (licensed assisted living director/clinical nurse supervisor (LALD/CNS)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure privacy by two of three unlicensed personnel (ULP-F, ULP-D) when providing direct assistance for R6. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to consideration of their privacy, individuality, and cultural identity as related to their social, religious, and psychological well-being. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- July 21, 2022: report 74OE11 · 24 correction orders
Details
Survey completed July 21, 2022: 24 correction orders
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to show they met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations understood applicable statutes and rules; nor developed and/or implemented current policies and procedures as required with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to show they met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations understood applicable statutes and rules; nor developed and/or implemented current policies and procedures as required with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The commissioner may refuse to grant a provisional license, refuse to grant a license as a result of a change in ownership, refuse to renew a license, suspend or revoke a license, or impose a conditional license if the owner, controlling individual, or [...]”
- Tag 430: 144G.40 Subd. 2 Uniform checklist disclosure of services Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a copy of the uniform checklist disclosure of services (UDALSA) with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a copy of the uniform checklist disclosure of services (UDALSA) with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all 13 residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must provide to prospective residents: (1) a disclosure of the categories of assisted living licenses available and the category of license held by the facility; (2) a written checklist listing all services permitted under [...]”
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed, implemented, and evaluated for appropriateness of staffing levels as required. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 485: 144G.41 Subd 1. (13) (i) (A) and (C) Minimum Requirements Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post a menu a week in advance that was made available to all residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to post a menu a week in advance that was made available to all residents. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- 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 the required information related to the grievance procedure.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to post the required information related to the grievance procedure. This had the potential to affect all 13 current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and e-mail contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
Show all 24
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to timely submit a report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for one of one resident (R4) who had an altercation with another resident (R5) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to timely submit a report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for one of one resident (R4) who had an altercation with another resident (R5) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “144G.42 Subd. 6. Compliance with requirements for reporting maltreatment of vulnerable adults; abuse prevention plan. (a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- 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) was developed to include the required content for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 640: 144G.42 Subd. 7 Posting information for reporting suspected c Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post the required content in common areas to include: posting the 911 emergency number and contact information for Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) in common areas and near telephones provided by the assisted living facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to post the required content in common areas to include: posting the 911 emergency number and contact information for Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) in common areas and near telephones provided by the assisted living facility. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility shall support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment by: (1) posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided [...]”
- Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the provider established and maintained a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included completion of a facility risk assessment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the provider established and maintained a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included completion of a facility risk assessment. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis infection control program according to the most current tuberculosis infection control guidelines issued by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division [...]”
- Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content and failed to post an emergency preparedness plan prominently.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content and failed to post an emergency preparedness plan prominently. This had the potential to affect all 13 residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the laundry room.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observations during facility tour, the licensee failed to maintain the laundry room. Excessive dryer lint was observed behind dryers. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 920: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (c) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all 13 residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) The contract must include: (1) a disclosure of the category of assisted living facility license held by the facility and, if the facility is not an assisted living facility with dementia care, a disclosure that it does not hold an assisted living facility [...]”
- Tag 930: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (d-e; 1-4) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all 13 residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(d) The contract must include a description of the facility's complaint resolution process available to residents, including the name and contact information of the person representing the facility who is designated to handle and resolve complaints. [...]”
- Tag 940: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (e; 5-7) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(5) a description of the facility's policies related to medical assistance waivers under chapter 256S and section 256B.49 and the housing support program under chapter 256I, including: (i) whether the facility is enrolled with the commissioner of human [...]”
- Tag 970: 144.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all 13 residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- Tag 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees registered nurse (RN)-B and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C received orientation to assisted living facility licensing to include all the required topics with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees registered nurse (RN)-B and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C received orientation to assisted living facility licensing to include all the required topics with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The orientation must contain the following topics: (1) an overview of this chapter; (2) an introduction and review of the facility's policies and procedures related to the provision of assisted living services by the individual staff person; (3) handling [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of two residents (R1, R2) service plans were authenticated with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of two residents (R1, R2) service plans were authenticated with records reviewed. 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 a pattern scope (when more than a limited number of residents are [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure service plans included the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans included the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed and administered according to manufacturer's instructions for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed and administered according to manufacturer's instructions for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration date for time sensitive medications for four of four residents (R2, R5, R6, R7) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration date for time sensitive medications for four of four residents (R2, R5, R6, R7) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
- Tag 1950: 144G.72 Subd. 4 Administration of treatments and therapy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure specific written instructions for each resident were documented in one of one resident's record (R2) who received blood glucose monitoring.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure specific written instructions for each resident were documented in one of one resident's record (R2) who received blood glucose monitoring. [...]”
Rule cited: “Ordered or prescribed treatments or therapies must be administered by a nurse, physician, or other licensed health professional authorized to perform the treatment or therapy, or may be delegated or assigned to unlicensed personnel by the licensed health [...]”
- Tag 3030: 626.557 Subd. (4,a) Internal reporting of maltreatment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to report timely to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for a resident-to-resident altercation and complete a thorough investigation for two of two residents (R4, R5) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to report timely to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for a resident-to-resident altercation and complete a thorough investigation for two of two residents (R4, R5) with records reviewed. In addition, the licensee failed to implement their written procedures pertaining to reporting vulnerable adult maltreatment for two of two residents (R4, R5) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each facility shall establish and enforce an ongoing written procedure in compliance with applicable licensing rules to ensure that all cases of suspected maltreatment are reported. [...]”
- Tag 3090: 144.6502, Subd. 8 Notice to Visitors Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure signage was posted at the main entryway of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity, potentially affecting all residents, staff, and visitors of the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure signage was posted at the main entryway of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity, potentially affecting all residents, staff, and visitors of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “Subd. 8.Notice to visitors. (a) A facility must post a sign at each facility entrance accessible to visitors that states: "Electronic monitoring devices, including security cameras and audio devices, may be present to record persons and activities." (b) The [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”
Level 2: “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”
Isolated scope: “when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred only occasionally”
Pattern scope: “when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred repeatedly; but is not found to be pervasive”
Widespread scope: “when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all of the residents”
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.
What these terms mean
MDH: “An evaluation is a process regulated by the division to ensure licensees comply with the laws, rules, and certifications for the type of care and services authorized under their license/certification.”
“An investigation may occur when the division is notified that care and services are not being provided by licensees as required by law. This may include allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misuse.”
For maltreatment, Minnesota law defines substantiated as “a preponderance of the evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred” and inconclusive as “less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur” (Minn. Stat. 626.5572).
Correction orders, as MDH explains on each state form: “Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities.” “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.” MDH adds that there is no requirement to submit a plan of correction for violations of Minnesota state statutes.
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 14 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.
License and ownershipActive license, licensee BARNES CARE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 425435
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-05-01
- Licensed capacity
- 14
- Licensee
- BARNES CARE
- County
- Carlton County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Brandon Barnes
Source: Minnesota state licensing records (agency listing), retrieved 2026-09-09. Licensing status is a matter of public record; it is not a quality rating.
Administrator/Authorized Agent name from the Minnesota licensing record, as of Sep 9, 2026.
Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota, and other programs
How Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota
- Elderly Waiver (EW), customized living services. Minnesota's Elderly Waiver, part of Medical Assistance (Minnesota Medicaid), can pay for "customized living" services, and a provider of those services must hold an assisted living license (or meet certain exceptions). You must qualify for Medical Assistance and need a nursing-home level of care. (state page)
Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 6.4 mi, nursing home 5.0 mi, pharmacy 5.7 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Community Memorial Hospital, Cloquet. 6.4 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Interfaith Care Center, Carlton. 5.0 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Senior Friend Home Care, Cloquet. 5.8 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walmart Pharmacy. 5.7 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55733 as metropolitan (metropolitan high commuting).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Medical Care - Cloquet, Cloquet, 6.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars)
Fmc Dialysis Services Of Spirit Valley, Duluth, 8.6 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Kidney Care Miller Hill, Hermantown, 10.5 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 6 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55733.
Moments Hospice, office in Hermantown, 10.6 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Essentia Health St Mary'S Hospice & Palliative Care Services, office in Duluth, 12.6 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Aspirus St. Luke'S At Home-Hospice-Duluth, office in Duluth, 13.2 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Polinsky Medical Rehabilitation Center, Duluth. 10.5 miles away, straight line. 3 geriatric medicine doctors listed there.
Distances are straight lines from the community, not driving distance. Hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors come from CMS provider data (CMS, hospital list updated Jul 22, 2026). Star ratings are CMS’s own.
Emergency and natural hazard riskFEMA overall risk relatively high; outside FEMA's high-risk flood areas
Public hazard maps for this location. Ask the community about its emergency plan, its generator and where residents would go in an evacuation.
- Flood zone
- Outside the high and moderate risk flood areas on FEMA's flood map (Zone X, minimal flood hazard, or not studied). (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively high. By hazard: inland flooding relatively high, wildfire relatively low, tornado relatively low, heat wave relatively moderate, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)
A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.
Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record
Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.
- The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
- Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
- For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
- Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
What we checked11 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here relatively low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Barnes Care, East Highway 61 provide?
Barnes Care, East Highway 61 is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Esko, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 14 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Barnes Care, East Highway 61?
No. We publish state licensing details for Barnes Care, East Highway 61 but no score, rating, or ranking. Only communities on the Top Communities list or with a Senior Living Alliance Excellence Award, both based on phone-verified resident and family interviews, are ranked.
How much does Barnes Care, East Highway 61 cost?
Assisted Living in Minnesota typically starts at $2,200 to $4,800 a month. Based on 74 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Barnes Care, East Highway 61 does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Barnes Care, East Highway 61?
Visit Barnes Care, East Highway 61 at 154 East Highway 61, Esko, MN 55733.
How Lilisity works. The only scores or rankings Lilisity publishes are the Top Communities list and the Excellence Awards, both built from phone-verified resident and family interviews. Communities can pay Lilisity a flat monthly fee to manage their own listing: photos, prices, contact details, and receiving the inquiries families choose to send them. The fee is the same no matter how many families contact them or move in. Senior Living Alliance, which runs Lilisity, offers the same listing to its member communities as part of their membership; members pay SLA for its resident and family interview program. No community pays Lilisity per inquiry, per referral or per move-in. Payment never changes a testimonial, a rating, or the order of search results. The "Nearby Senior Living Alliance communities" box shows member communities only. How we verify testimonials · How we are paid