Assisted Living and Memory Care
Benedictine Living Community |
625 Central Avenue, Osseo, MN 55369 · Map
Licensed for 64 residents · BENEDICTINE LIVING COMMUNITY | OSSEO
Benedictine Living Community | is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Osseo, Minnesota. It is licensed for 64 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
Care and services
From the community’s website
What Benedictine Living Community | says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
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, 64 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425826, current license dated Jul 1, 2026. Licensee BENEDICTINE LIVING COMMUNITY | OSSEO.
Nearest emergency room
3.9 miles
Maple Grove Hospital, rated 5 of 5 stars by CMS.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benedictine Living Community | this community | 64 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Radiant Living Homes | 0.3 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Golden Hearts Home Care Servic | 0.5 mi | 7 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Osseo Gardens Assisted Living | 0.6 mi | 42 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Bestlife Healthcare Services L | 0.6 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- January 7, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (January 7, 2025, state report 38W811)
MDH: “On January 6, 2025, through January 7, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted an initial survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed January 7, 2025: 5 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) and was issued at a 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 the [...]”
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 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included a TB history and symptom screening and baseline TB testing for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included a TB history and symptom screening and baseline TB testing for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F). [...]”
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 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 provide emergency lighting incompliance with the provisions of Minnesota State Fire Code under MN Rules chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed provide emergency lighting incompliance with the provisions of Minnesota State Fire Code under MN Rules chapter 7511. These deficient conditions had 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 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) 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 maintain 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.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain 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. This deficient condition 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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- September 28, 2022: report TRVN11 · 14 correction orders
Details
Survey completed September 28, 2022: 14 correction orders
- Tag 485: 144G.41 Subd 1. (13) (i) (A) and (C) Minimum Requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed ensure at least three nutritious meals were served daily, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines, including seasonal fresh fruit and fresh vegetables,.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed ensure at least three nutritious meals were served daily, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines, including seasonal fresh fruit and fresh vegetables,. This had the potential to affect all current 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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with acceptable health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all of the licensee's residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid employee, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- 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 disaster preparedness plan with all required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency disaster preparedness plan with all required content. This had the potential to affect the licensee's 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 physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation. This has the potential to directly affect the health, safety, and well-being of all residents, visitors, and staff. [...]”
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 [...]”
Show all 14
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the correct frequency of employee fire safety and evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide the correct frequency of employee fire safety and evacuation drills. This has the potential to directly affect the safety of visitors, staff, and all residents receiving care. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- 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 all required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with all required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). [...]”
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 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”
- 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 per providers orders for one of five residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered per providers orders for one of five 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, 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 [...]”
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 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to store all medications in a securely locked location for one of four residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to store all medications in a securely locked location for one of four 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, 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 [...]”
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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · 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 for five of 17 residents (R3, R7, R8, R12, R14) and failed to discard expired medication for one of 17 residents (R11).
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 for five of 17 residents (R3, R7, R8, R12, R14) and failed to discard expired medication for one of 17 residents (R11). [...]”
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 1900: 144G.71 Subd. 21 Prohibitions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a prescription medication for one resident was not being saved for use by another, other than the resident prescribed for one of one resident (R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure a prescription medication for one resident was not being saved for use by another, other than the resident prescribed for one of one resident (R6). [...]”
Rule cited: “No prescription drug supply for one resident may be used or saved for use by anyone other than the resident.”
- Tag 2090: 144G.82 Subdivision 1 General Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain a dignified dining experience for three of ten residents (R9, R15, R17).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain a dignified dining experience for three of ten residents (R9, R15, R17). 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 a 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “The licensee of an assisted living facility with dementia care is responsible for the care and housing of the persons with dementia and the provision of person-centered care that promotes each resident's dignity, independence, and comfort. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care standards, medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R13) who utilized oxygen.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care standards, medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R13) who utilized oxygen. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
- Tag 485: 144G.41 Subd 1. (13) (i) (A) and (C) Minimum Requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- June 17, 2024 · report HL306879986M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff did not provide supervision and monitoring for the resident. The resident eloped and was found on the ground outside of the facility.”
“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 facility documented the resident had cognitive changes (changes in knowledge of observation, thinking, problem solving, and/or memory) and wandering in the facility two months prior to the incident but did not put a safety plan in place to prevent or address the increased risk of elopement.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility investigated the incident, implemented two-hour checks on the resident throughout the rest of the night, and moved the resident to the memory care unit the following day.”
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 May 29, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was 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 incident 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.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- September 11, 2025 · report HL306873102M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when it failed to perform scheduled a safety check over night or in the morning.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. While it was true the resident was found on the floor between his bed and the wall, the caregivers were familiar with his routine and had adapted his cares to that routine. The facility took appropriate action to address the resident's cares.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility sent to the resident to the hospital for evaluation. The resident did not return to the facility but was residing at a higher level of care facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed July 1, 2025: 1 correction order
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the contents of a resident record included a service plan which was updated with information obtained in the resident evaluation regarding safety checks for one of one resident reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interviews, the licensee failed to ensure the contents of a resident record included a service plan which was updated with information obtained in the resident evaluation regarding safety checks for one of one resident reviewed. R1 had been found on the floor between his bed and the wall. R1 had been there for an undetermined amount of time and required hospitalization. [...]”
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 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
- May 6, 2025 · report HL306879103M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the facility failed to promptly seek medical intervention for the resident's shingles. The resident's health declined, and she died less than two weeks after being diagnosed.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. It was reasonable facility staff may not have observed the resident's rash until the day of the fall. There was also a lack of evidence the shingles played a role in the resident's decline and death.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility instructed the family to show the provider at the ED the rash after noticing the rash. The facility also notified the provider.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed April 8, 2025: 1 correction order
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure records included documentation of significant changes in the resident's status and actions taken in response to the needs for one of two residents (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure records included documentation of significant changes in the resident's status and actions taken in response to the needs for one of two residents (R1) reviewed. [...]”
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 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · 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 64 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 BENEDICTINE LIVING COMMUNITY | OSSEO
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 425826
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-07-01
- Licensed capacity
- 64
- Licensee
- BENEDICTINE LIVING COMMUNITY | OSSEO
- County
- Hennepin County
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.
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 3.9 mi, nursing home 0.6 mi, pharmacy 2.1 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Maple Grove Hospital, Maple Grove. 3.9 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- The Villas at Osseo LLC, Osseo. 0.6 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Regency Home Healthcare Services, LLC, Maple Grove. 0.6 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Cub Pharmacy. 2.1 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55369 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fmc - Maple Grove Dialysis, Maple Grove, 2.8 miles away, straight line (has a shift starting after 5 pm; CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Maple Grove Dialysis Unit, Maple Grove, 3.7 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Medical Care - Champlin, Champlin, 3.9 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 28 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55369.
North Memorial Home Hlth Hospc, office in Robbinsdale, 8.1 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Superior Hospice Inc., office in Golden Valley, 9.3 miles away, straight line
Moments Hospice, office in Golden Valley, 9.6 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 1 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Hennepin Healthcare System Inc, Brooklyn Park. 3.0 miles away, straight line. 2 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 moderate; 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 moderate. By hazard: inland flooding relatively moderate, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, 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 work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- 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?
What we checked12 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 very 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 |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Benedictine Living Community | provide?
Benedictine Living Community | is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Osseo, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 64 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Benedictine Living Community |?
No. We publish state licensing details for Benedictine Living Community | 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 Benedictine Living Community | cost?
Assisted Living in Hennepin County typically starts at $2,500 to $4,400 a month. Based on 18 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Benedictine Living Community | does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Benedictine Living Community |?
Use Benedictine Living Community |'s website, benedictineliving.org/osseo-mn, or visit at 625 Central Avenue, Osseo, MN 55369.
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