Bimsol Care

Survey completed March 6, 2024: 9 correction orders

• Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements 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: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”

• 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

  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 one resident (R1). [...]”

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

• 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 maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). [...]”

  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

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving services under the assisted living license. [...]”

  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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation greater than four days for one of one resident (R1).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation greater than four days for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

  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: MDH granted the assisted living license; no immediate fines.

Allegation, as written: “Alleged Perpetrator (AP)-1 and AP-2 neglected the resident when AP-1 and AP-2 failed to call 911 and initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as soon as possible.”

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

Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.

MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. The time between when AP-2 last saw the resident awake and when 911 was called, was approximately 30 minutes. There were conflicting reports on what time the resident became unresponsive. AP-1, AP-2, and other facility staff recounted a similar story and timeline of events. AP-1 contacted the nurse, and AP-2 called 911 and initiated CPR.”

Action taken by facility: “Facility staff called 911 and started chest compressions.”

Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

Survey completed January 26, 2026: 1 correction order

• Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure staff documented medication administration for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4) with records reviewed.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff documented medication administration for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4) 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. [...]”

Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff failed to follow the prescribed care plan and failed to provide wound care as ordered.”

“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. The facility followed the resident's care plan. The resident was continually monitored and treated according to the resident's individual assessed needs.”

Action taken by facility: “The facility purchased additional wound care supplies as needed and obtained additional training by attending additional wound care treatment courses.”

Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”

Survey completed August 4, 2025: no correction orders issued.

Allegation, as written: “The facility abused the resident when staff yelled at the resident and kicked her in the head. Additionally, facility staff neglected the resident when the resident was found on the ground smelling of urine.”

“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse and neglect were not substantiated.”

Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse and neglect not substantiated.

MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse and neglect were not substantiated. The facility assessed the resident for areas of vulnerability and implemented interventions to address the resident's concerns. Although the resident reported emotional abuse, physical abuse, and neglect from staff, there was no corroborating evidence to support abuse or neglect occurred. The facility was aware of the resident's concerns and discussed the concerns with the resident's respective care teams.”

Action taken by facility: “The facility investigated reported allegations and collaborates with the resident's care team.”

Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”

Survey completed February 11, 2025: no correction orders issued.

Allegation, as written: “The facility abused the resident when the facility took away his electric wheelchair which inhibited his mobility and made him unable to come and go as desired.”

“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated.”

Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse not substantiated.

MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. During a period of delirium and noncompliance with healthcare recommendations, the providers and family made the decision to remove the electric wheelchair from the resident. The resident did get his electric wheelchair back.”

Action taken by facility: “The facility provided a manual wheelchair for the resident to use while he did not have his electric wheelchair. The facility also assisted him to go outside and complete errands as desired while utilizing the manual wheelchair. The facility returned the resident's electric wheelchair immediately after being informed he could have it back.”

Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”

Survey completed August 22, 2024: no correction orders issued.