Assisted Living
Bridgewater at Mankato
630 Reed Street, Mankato, MN 56001 · Map
Licensed for 26 residents · BRIDGEWATER AT MANKATO
Bridgewater at Mankato is a state-licensed assisted living community in Mankato, Minnesota. It is licensed for 26 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 Bridgewater at Mankato says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Offers diabetes care.
Our care team can assist with diabetes management, injections, basic wound care, catheter care along with other higher care needs.
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026)
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, 26 residents
Assisted Living Facility 422211, current license dated Sep 1, 2025. Licensee BRIDGEWATER AT MANKATO.
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- January 23, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (January 23, 2025, state report QEMX11)
MDH: “On January 21, 2025, through January 23, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed January 23, 2025: 10 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 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 comply with the current Minnesota Fire Code Provisions.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the current Minnesota Fire Code Provisions. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) provide smoke alarms outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms; (iii) provide smoke [...]”
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with required content and failed to conduct the required training and drills. 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. [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care for one of one resident (R1) who was hospitalized greater than four days.
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 Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care for one of one resident (R1) who was hospitalized greater than four days. [...]”
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. [...]”
- 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 a written service plan included the current services provided for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan included the current services provided for two of two residents (R1, 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 a pattern scope (when more than a limited number of residents are [...]”
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 [...]”
Show all 10
- 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 for one of five residents (R4) observed during medication administration.
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 for one of five residents (R4) observed during medication administration. [...]”
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, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · 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 two of two residents (R1, R2).
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 two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
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 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 treatment or therapies were administered as directed, or to document the reason they were not administered, for one of two residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure treatment or therapies were administered as directed, or to document the reason they were not administered, for one of two residents (R1). [...]”
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) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were renewed at least every 12 months for one of two residents (R2) receiving treatments.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were renewed at least every 12 months for one of two residents (R2) receiving treatments. [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) 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 ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards related to oxygen storage.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards related to oxygen storage. [...]”
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.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- June 3, 2022: report NZZD11 · 20 correction orders
Details
Survey completed June 3, 2022: 20 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 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 ensure at least three nutritious meals daily according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure at least three nutritious meals daily according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines. This had the potential to affect all 23 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 information related to the grievance procedure, resident advocacy information, and information for reporting suspected maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post information related to the grievance procedure, resident advocacy information, and information for reporting suspected maltreatment. This had the potential to affect all 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. [...]”
- 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 the employee record contained training and competency evaluations for delegated tasks for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F, ULP-G) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the employee record contained training and competency evaluations for delegated tasks for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F, ULP-G) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of content in the resident's record as required for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of content in the resident's record as required for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) with records 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, [...]”
Show all 20
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a smoke alarm outside within the vicinity of the bedroom of resident apartment unit #12 of building 2 as required by Minnesota Statutes, 144G.45, Subd. 2.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide a smoke alarm outside within the vicinity of the bedroom of resident apartment unit #12 of building 2 as required by Minnesota Statutes, 144G.45, Subd. 2. This has the potential to directly affect resident, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
- Tag 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2)-(3) 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 portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code as required by MN Statute 144G.45 Subd(a)(2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, record review, and interview, the licensee failed to maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code as required by MN Statute 144G.45 Subd(a)(2). This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the required documentation on fire protection procedures for residents as part of the fire safety and evacuation plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide the required documentation on fire protection procedures for residents as part of the fire safety and evacuation plan. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) had completed and/or documented a comprehensive assessment for change in condition for three of three residents (R1, R2, R6) related to falls.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) had completed and/or documented a comprehensive assessment for change in condition for three of three residents (R1, R2, R6) related to falls. [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan was revised, based on resident reassessment for two of three residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan was revised, based on resident reassessment for two of three residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included all required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included all required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) 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 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individualized medication management plan to include all required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individualized medication management plan to include all required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure delegated procedures were followed and the registered nurse (RN) specified, in writing, specific instructions for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) for administration of medications, with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure delegated procedures were followed and the registered nurse (RN) specified, in writing, specific instructions for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) for administration of medications, with records reviewed. [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medication was administered as prescribed for two of five residents (R1, R5), observed for medication administration and failed to ensure documented site of injection for one of three residents (R1) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medication was administered as prescribed for two of five residents (R1, R5), observed for medication administration and failed to ensure documented site of injection for one of three residents (R1) 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 1820: 144G.71 Subd. 13 Prescriptions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review the licensee failed to ensure one of three residents (R1) had signed prescriber's orders for medications 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 an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be a current written or electronically recorded prescription as defined in section 151.01, subdivision 16a, for all prescribed medications that the assisted living facility is managing for the resident.”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of all medications including the medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, to whom the medications were given, date of disposition, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of one discharged resident (R4) with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of all medications including the medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, to whom the medications were given, date of disposition, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of one discharged resident (R4) with record reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- 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 ensure an individualized treatments or therapy management plan to include all required content for two of three residents (R1, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individualized treatments or therapy management plan to include all required content for two of three residents (R1, R3) with records reviewed. [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an the registered nurse (RN) specified, in writing, specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions in the resident's records for two of three residents (R1, R3) receiving treatments or therapy and had instructed the unlicensed personnel (ULP) in the proper methods with respect to each resident and the ULP had demonstrated the ability to competently follow the procedures for two of two employees (ULP-F, ULP-G) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an the registered nurse (RN) specified, in writing, specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions in the resident's records for two of three residents (R1, R3) receiving treatments or therapy and had instructed the unlicensed personnel (ULP) in the proper methods with respect to each resident and the ULP had demonstrated the ability to competently follow the procedures for two of two [...]”
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 a prescribed treatment was documented accurately for one of
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a prescribed treatment was documented accurately for one of three residents (R1), with records reviewed. [...]”
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) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review the licensee failed to ensure prescriber orders for treatment or therapy for two of three residents (R1, R3) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- October 9, 2023 · report HL345686746M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused a resident by clenching her fists and addressing her in an intimidating manner. The AP screamed at her, sent her to her room, and said she would not be allowed to leave until granted permission. Additionally, she was told to eat meals in her room.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. The investigator did not identify witnesses to the interaction between the AP and the resident. Additionally, evidence was not identified indicating the facility made the resident take her meals in her room.”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed September 14, 2023: no correction orders issued.
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- August 4, 2025 · report HL345682222M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “An alleged perpetrator (AP), a facility licensed staff member, neglected a resident when the AP delayed the resident receiving medical treatment for her symptoms. The resident suffered for two days before being transported to the hospital.”
“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. Documentation indicated the AP responded appropriately and sent the resident to the hospital in a timely manner. There was no documentation the resident requested staff to call 911 until the day the facility arranged for the resident to be evaluated at a hospital.”
Action taken by facility: “No action was taken.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed July 2, 2025: no correction orders issued.
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”
Level 3: “a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to 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 26 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 BRIDGEWATER AT MANKATO
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 422211
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-09-01
- Licensed capacity
- 26
- Licensee
- BRIDGEWATER AT MANKATO
- County
- Blue Earth County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Brooke Olson
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.
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 2025. 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 checked8 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 |
| 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 Bridgewater at Mankato provide?
Bridgewater at Mankato is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Mankato, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 26 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Bridgewater at Mankato?
No. We publish state licensing details for Bridgewater at Mankato 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 Bridgewater at Mankato 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. Bridgewater at Mankato does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Bridgewater at Mankato?
Use Bridgewater at Mankato's website, bridgewatermn.net, or visit at 630 Reed Street, Mankato, MN 56001.
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