Lilisity

Assisted Living and Memory Care

Bridgewell Assisted Living

410 West Main Street, Osakis, MN 56360 · Map
Licensed for 20 residents · BRIDGEWELL ASSISTED LIVING

State license active
Is this your community? Claim this listing

Bridgewell Assisted Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Osakis, Minnesota. It is licensed for 20 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.

Assisted LivingAlso memory care
20 residentsLicensed capacity
State licensedAssisted living facility dementia care
$2,200 to $4,800/moTypical assisted living start in Minnesota, from 74 communities that publish prices

Prices

This community does not publish its prices.

Area costs

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.
Memory Care in Minnesota typically starts at $3,900 to $8,600 a month. Based on 40 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price.

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.

State inspections

0Substantiated investigations

Last evaluation: Aug 13, 2025. See the record

License

Active, 20 residents

Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424954, current license dated May 1, 2026. Licensee BRIDGEWELL ASSISTED LIVING.

Nearest emergency room

10.4 miles

Alomere Health, rated 4 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.

CommunityDistanceLicensed capacityPublished starting priceLicenseInspection citations
Bridgewell Assisted Living this community20Not publishedActive0 substantiated
West View Assisted Living Apartments0.2 mi25Not publishedActive1 substantiated
Edgewood Alexandria Senior Liv9.1 mi62Not publishedActive1 substantiated
Autumn Cottages9.3 mi20$7,595/moActive0 substantiated
Vista Prairie at Windmill Pond (Assisted Living and Memory Care)9.5 mi26Not publishedActive0 substantiated
State inspection record0 substantiated
Last evaluation
August 13, 2025
Evaluations on record
2
Investigations substantiated
0 kept 7 years
Inconclusive
1 kept 4 years
Unsubstantiated
2 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (August 13, 2025, state report ZC7611)

MDH: “On August 11, 2025, through August 13, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed August 13, 2025: 6 correction orders

  • Tag 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) 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 requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”

  • Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2)
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure background studies (BGS) were submitted and a clearance received in affiliation with the assisted living licensee's current health facility identification (HFID) 25904 for three of three employees (maintenance (M)-D, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, ULP-H).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure background studies (BGS) were submitted and a clearance received in affiliation with the assisted living licensee's current health facility identification (HFID) 25904 for three of three employees (maintenance (M)-D, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, ULP-H). This had the potential to affect all 14 residents receiving services under the assisted living with dementia care license. [...]”

    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 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 provide staff orientation to assisted living requirements and regulations for two of three employees (maintenance (M)-D, registered nurse (RN)-F).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide staff orientation to assisted living requirements and regulations for two of three employees (maintenance (M)-D, registered nurse (RN)-F). This had the potential to affect all residents of the licensee. [...]”

    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 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 a medication was maintained bearing the original prescription label with information regarding the direction for use, medication name, medication dosage, resident's name, and the pharmacy in which it had been issued.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a medication was maintained bearing the original prescription label with information regarding the direction for use, medication name, medication dosage, resident's name, and the pharmacy in which it had been issued. [...]”

    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 the registered nurse (RN) specified in writing specific instructions for unlicensed personnel (ULP) performing a treatment for one of two residents (R1)

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) specified in writing specific instructions for unlicensed personnel (ULP) performing a treatment for one of two residents (R1) This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an [...]”

    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 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 current written or electronically recorded prescriptions were obtained for one of two residents (R1) who received treatment services.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure current written or electronically recorded prescriptions were obtained for one of two residents (R1) who received treatment services. [...]”

    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.

Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): No orders were issued for this inspection report.

Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.

Earlier evaluations (1)
  • January 20, 2023: report 6TUL11 · 21 correction orders
    Details

    Survey completed January 20, 2023: 21 correction orders

    • Tag 460: 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 lacked a system for residents at the facility to request assistance for health and safety needs 24 hours a day, seven days a week for two of two residents (R1 and R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee lacked a system for residents at the facility to request assistance for health and safety needs 24 hours a day, seven days a week for two of two residents (R1 and R2). This had the potential to affect all 16 residents at the facility. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(5) provide a means for residents to request assistance for health and safety needs 24 hours per day, seven days per week; (6) allow residents the ability to furnish and decorate the resident's unit within the terms of the assisted living contract; (7) permit [...]”

    • Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) 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 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: (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 contact information for the individuals who were responsible for handling resident grievances.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to post the required contact information for the individuals who were responsible for handling resident grievances. This had the potential to affect all 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. [...]”

    • Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) 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 ensure an individual abuse prevention plan was developed to include the

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan was developed to include the required content for one of two residents (R2). [...]”

      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 support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment as required.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment as required. This had the potential to affect all current 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 [...]”

    Show all 21
    • 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 prominently post a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to prominently post a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP). This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”

      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 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 provide the required training to residents and employees for fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required employee evacuation drills.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide the required training to residents and employees for fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required employee evacuation drills. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff, and visitors to the facility. [...]”

      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 contract with the

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2). This had the potential to affect all 16 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 contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2). This had the potential to affect all 16 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 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual began working for the licensee for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C and ULP-E).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual began working for the licensee for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C and ULP-E). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) Staff who perform delegated nursing or therapy tasks must be supervised by an appropriate licensed health professional or a registered nurse according to the assisted living facility's policy where the services are being provided to verify that the work [...]”

    • Tag 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations prior to providing services for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP-E)).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations prior to providing services for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP-E)). [...]”

      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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) assessed two of two residents (R1 and R2) with falls, for causative factors to determine individualized interventions to reduce the resident's risk for injury.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) assessed two of two residents (R1 and R2) with falls, for causative factors to determine individualized interventions to reduce the resident's risk for injury. [...]”

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

    • Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a service plan included the required content for two of two residents (R1

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a service plan included the required content for two of two residents (R1 and 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 widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that [...]”

      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 1690: 144G.71 Subdivision 1 Medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written medication management policies and procedures under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written medication management policies and procedures under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) This section applies only to assisted living facilities that provide medication management services. [...]”

    • Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication plan to include documentation of specific resident instructions relating to the administration of medications for one of two residents (R1).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication plan to include documentation of specific resident instructions relating to the administration of medications for one of two residents (R1). [...]”

      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 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications 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 document in the resident's record the disposition of the medications as required for one of one resident (R4) upon discharge. [...]”

      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 1930: 144G.72 Subd. 2 Policies and procedures Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written treatment and therapy management policies and procedures under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written treatment and therapy management policies and procedures under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility that provides treatment and therapy management services must develop, implement, and maintain up-to-date written treatment or therapy management policies and procedures. [...]”

    • Tag 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in the licensing of assisted living facilities with dementia care were developed and provided to each resident and the residents' legal and designated representative at the time of move-in.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in the licensing of assisted living facilities with dementia care were developed and provided to each resident and the residents' legal and designated representative at the time of move-in. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”

    • Tag 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for two of two residents (R1 and R2) who resided in the assisted living with dementia care facility.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for two of two residents (R1 and R2) who resided in the assisted living with dementia care facility. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”

    • Tag 2180: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure behavioral symptoms identified were addressed on the service plan for two of two residents (R1 and R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure behavioral symptoms identified were addressed on the service plan for two of two residents (R1 and R2). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(e) Behavioral symptoms that negatively impact the resident and others in the assisted living facility with dementia care must be evaluated and included on the service or care plan. [...]”

    • Tag 2260: 144G.90 Subd. 3 Notice of dementia training 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 requested it, an accurate description of the dementia care training program with the required content.

      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 requested it, an accurate description of the dementia care training program with the required content. [...]”

      Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care shall make available in written or electronic form, to residents and families or other persons who request it, a description of the training program and related training it provides, including the categories of [...]”

    From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.

Inconclusive investigations (1)
  • November 14, 2024 · report HL259044641M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
    Details

    Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), an unlicensed personnel (ULP), financially exploited the resident when she took a narcotic pain medication for her own personal use.”

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

    Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation inconclusive.

    MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was inconclusive. Although the AP was responsible for medication administration and in possession of the keys for the narcotic box at the time the medication discrepancy occurred, there was not a preponderance of evidence to determine if the AP took the medication. A drug test completed after the allegation was reported was negative and the AP denied taking the medication.”

    Action taken by facility: “The facility immediately investigated the discrepancy in narcotics and contacted law enforcement.”

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

    Survey completed September 20, 2024: no correction orders issued.

Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
  • June 10, 2026 · report HL259042680M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
    Details

    Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff failed to notify the nurse of a change in condition. The nurse was not notified until two hours later and treatment was delayed for approximately five hours before the resident was finally sent to the emergency room.”

    “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 there was a delay in care after a change in condition was observed, the resident still received timely care and was appropriately monitored at the facility. A few hours after the resident's inability to transfer was noted, he fell. Staff immediately notified the nurse who assessed the resident. The resident was sent to the emergency room and diagnosed with a subdural hematoma. The resident died a few days later.”

    Action taken by facility: “The facility investigated the fall and reported the incident to MAARC.”

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

    Survey completed May 1, 2026: no correction orders issued.

  • June 28, 2024 · report HL259042102M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
    Details

    Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff failed to administer the resident's medications according to physician orders and in accordance with the resident's service agreement. The resident was given his roommate's medications, which included a medication to treat high blood pressure. The resident was found unresponsive a few hours later and was taken to the emergency room where he was treated for shock and low blood pressure.”

    “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. Although the resident was given the wrong medications, the error was an isolated incident. The resident was hospitalized and later discharged to a long-term care facility. The resident returned to his baseline health condition.”

    Action taken by facility: “The facility reported and investigated the incident. Additional training was provided to the ULP and the facility reviewed their medication administration process.”

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

    Survey completed May 10, 2024: 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”

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 20 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 BRIDGEWELL ASSISTED LIVING
License type
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
License number
424954
License status
Active
Current license dated
2026-05-01
Licensed capacity
20
Licensee
BRIDGEWELL ASSISTED LIVING
Administrator/Authorized Agent
Angie Reinke

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 10.4 mi, nursing home 0.0 mi, pharmacy 10.6 mi
Nearest hospital with an emergency room
Alomere Health, Alexandria. 10.4 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
Nearest Medicare nursing home
Galeon, Osakis. 0.0 miles away, straight line.
Nearest home health agency office
Vivie Home Health, Alexandria. 8.8 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
Nearest pharmacy
Walgreens. 10.6 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
Area
USDA classes ZIP code 56360 as micropolitan (micropolitan high commuting).
Dialysis within 15 miles
Fresenius Kidney Care Douglas County, Alexandria, 10.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 5 of 5 stars)
Hospice
6 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56360.
Vivie Hospice, office in Alexandria, 8.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Moments Hospice Of Alexandria LLC, office in Alexandria, 10.0 miles away, straight line
Horizon Public Health, office in Alexandria, 10.7 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars)
Nearest geriatric medicine practice
Allina Health System, Annandale. 65.8 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 relatively low, tornado relatively moderate, heat wave relatively low, 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.

  1. The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
  2. What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
  3. How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
  4. What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
  5. How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
  6. How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
  7. What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
  8. What fees are charged at move-in?
  9. How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
  10. How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
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.

SourceData as ofWhat we found
Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection recordsSep 28, 2026See above
U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour casesOct 15, 2026Nothing on record
OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016Oct 15, 2026Nothing on record
FEMA flood mapSee above
USDA wildfire riskApr 15, 2026Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here relatively low
FEMA National Risk IndexSee above
CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmaciesSee above
HUD Multifamily Properties - AssistedJul 6, 2026Nothing on record
State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory)Sep 20, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Hospice - General InformationAug 19, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Home Health Care AgenciesMay 27, 2026Nothing on record
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Bridgewell Assisted Living provide?

Bridgewell Assisted Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Osakis, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 20 residents.

Does Lilisity rate Bridgewell Assisted Living?

No. We publish state licensing details for Bridgewell Assisted Living 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 Bridgewell Assisted Living 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. Bridgewell Assisted Living does not publish its prices.

How do I contact Bridgewell Assisted Living?

Visit Bridgewell Assisted Living at 410 West Main Street, Osakis, MN 56360.

Choosing assisted livingOur care guide: what to look for, what it costs, how families pay, and more questions to ask (PDF)

Report a wrong fact

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