Callista Court

Last evaluation

November 19, 2025

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

2 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

0 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

1 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (November 19, 2025, state report EGLH11)

MDH: “On November 17, 2025, through November 19, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed November 19, 2025: 4 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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) · fine: $500.00 assessed
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”

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

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

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of six residents (R8).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of six residents (R8). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or [...]”

  Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”

• Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications included an open date for two of six residents

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications included an open date for two of six residents (R9, R3). 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 one or a [...]”

  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 [...]”

From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.

Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included

Fines assessed by MDH

• Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd.2. (a) - Fire Protection And PhysicalEnvironment): $500.00

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

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• July 12, 2024 · report HL205499665M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when the AP did not check on the resident after he failed to flip his safety check sign. Family found the resident unresponsive in his apartment and required emergency services.”

  “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 allegation against the AP was not substantiated. Although the AP signed off on a service she did not complete, miscommunication occurred between the AP and another unlicensed personnel (ULP). The facility knew the resident had hip mobility issues, did not wear his pendant, and had a history of falls. Additionally, the facility did not pre-determine which tasks would be assigned to each ULP but instead relied on the ULPs to split up their daily tasks. Regarding the "I'm Okay" check program, staff were unable to confirm if the responsibility fell on all staff or just nursing prior to the incident.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility completed education with staff.”

  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 April 15, 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(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) 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 incidents 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.”

• July 28, 2022 · report HL20549002M

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.

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 123 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.