Assisted Living and Memory Care
Copperfield Hill the Lodge
4020 Lakeland Avenue North, Robbinsdale, MN 55422 · Map
Licensed for 110 residents · COPPERFIELD HILL THE LODGE
Copperfield Hill the Lodge is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. It is licensed for 110 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 Copperfield Hill the Lodge says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Has a separate memory care unit, wing or neighborhood.
Our Memory Care neighborhoods go beyond healthcare staff—everyone involved considers themselves a caregiver.
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026) - Offers behavioral support.
The personal care plan will include all the services a resident may need, such as dressing, grooming, behavior management, ambulation/mobility, continence care, medication management, and meal and activity escorts/reminders.
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026) - Provides transportation.
Scheduled transportation for medical appointments, shopping, banking, dining, and other outings aboard our Copperfield van or bus.
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026) - 3 meals a day.
Assisted Living and Memory Care residents are provided with three meals per day.
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026) - Apartment types named: companion suite.
A shared suite option in the Lodge at Copperfield Hill brings together two residents, providing a more affordable and accessible senior living experience while ensuring they receive the high-quality care and programming they deserve.
(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, 110 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424914, current license dated May 1, 2026. Licensee COPPERFIELD HILL THE LODGE.
Nearest emergency room
1.4 miles
North Memorial Health Hospital, rated 1 of 5 stars by CMS.
Side by side with nearby communities
The 4 nearest communities that offer assisted living, by straight-line distance. Prices are starting prices each community publishes; we never show estimates.
| Community | Distance | Licensed capacity | Published starting price | License | Inspection citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Copperfield Hill the Lodge this community | 110 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Tff Care | 0.0 mi | 175 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Hopeville Homes | 0.1 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Prestigious Care Homes, Grimes Ave N | 0.3 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Totalcare Assisted Living Services | 0.4 mi | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- August 22, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (August 22, 2025, state report 1O4911)
MDH: “On August 18, 2025, through August 20, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed August 20, 2025: 6 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 was 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) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
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: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted a comprehensive assessment 14 days after admission one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted a comprehensive assessment 14 days after admission one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to monitor the temperature of their medication storage refrigerator to ensure medications were stored according to manufacturer directions for one of one resident (R2) with refrigerated medications.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to monitor the temperature of their medication storage refrigerator to ensure medications were stored according to manufacturer directions for one of one resident (R2) with refrigerated medications. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure time-sensitive medications were labeled with an opened-on date for one of one resident (R2) with insulin;
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure time-sensitive medications were labeled with an opened-on date for one of one resident (R2) with insulin; In addition, one of two of R2's insulin pens were unlabeled. [...]”
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 1960: 144G.72 Subd. 5 Documentation of administration of treatments Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document treatment administration for one of one resident (R2) with treatments.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to document treatment administration for one of one resident (R2) with treatments. 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”
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.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- February 16, 2023: report WCHX11 · 15 correction orders
Details
Survey completed February 16, 2023: 15 correction orders
- 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: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with acceptable health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with acceptable health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all of the licensee's residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency documentation was maintained for one of two registered nurse (RN)-B to include all required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency documentation was maintained for one of two registered nurse (RN)-B to include all required content. [...]”
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 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 establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included baseline testing and screening for three of four employees (registered nurse (RN)-B, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, ULP-H).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included baseline testing and screening for three of four employees (registered nurse (RN)-B, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, ULP-H). [...]”
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
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content.
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 [...]”
Show all 15
- 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 provide smoke alarms that are interconnected so that actuation of one alarm causes all alarms in the dwelling unit to actuate.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that are interconnected so that actuation of one alarm causes all alarms in the dwelling unit to actuate. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
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 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
- Tag 970: 144G.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the licensee's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the licensee's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all residents living at the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was completed as required for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was completed as required for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”
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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted change in condition reassessments for one of five residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted change in condition reassessments for one of five 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) and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident's service plan included the required content for one of five residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident's service plan included the required content for one of five 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 isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or [...]”
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 1820: 144G.71 Subd. 13 Prescriptions Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a current written or electronically recorded prescription for all prescribed medications that the assisted facility was managing for two of five residents (R4, R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a current written or electronically recorded prescription for all prescribed medications that the assisted facility was managing for two of five residents (R4, R5). [...]”
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 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to discard expired medication for two of two residents (R4, R15); failed to ensure medications were labeled with legible information for one of one resident (R14); and failed to ensure time sensitive medications were labeled with the date opened for three of three residents (R4, R9, R12). [...]”
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 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 ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of one resident (R4) who received a treatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of one resident (R4) who received a treatment. [...]”
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 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Immediate
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care standards, medical or nursing standards for three
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care standards, medical or nursing standards for three of three residents (R2, R7, R8) who utilized consumer portable bed rails. [...]”
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.
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,500.00.
- 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
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- March 6, 2024 · report HL299668346M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “Alleged perpetrator 1 (AP1), and AP2, physically abused the resident when they forcibly removed the resident from the dining room against her will, which led to the resident falling to the floor. The alleged perpetrators (AP1 and AP2) neglected the resident when the resident was left lying on the floor after a fall for over ten minutes before receiving assistance to stand up.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined it was inconclusive whether abuse and neglect occurred.”
“AP1 and AP2 were responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: it inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined it was inconclusive whether abuse and neglect occurred. AP1 and AP2 were responsible for the maltreatment. Some evidence indicated AP1 and AP2 forcibly grabbed the residents' arms and forced the resident from the facility dining room. AP1 and AP2 each took one of the resident's arms to walk her out of the dining room while the resident physically resisted their restraint of her arms. As the resident continued to struggle, AP1 stepped on the resident's foot or tripped over the resident's foot, causing the resident to fall to her knees and then face-first onto the floor. AP1 and AP2 left the resident lay on the floor for over 17 minutes while they continued to complete tasks around the facility. [...]”
Action taken by facility: “The facility completed an internal investigation, provided re-education to staff regarding procedures after a resident fall. The APs are no longer employed at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed January 17, 2024: no correction orders issued.
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- September 16, 2024 · report HL299663682M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused a resident when the AP was found with the resident in her room and the resident had a bruise on her left eye and right arm. The resident reported the AP hit her.”
“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. Although the resident reported the AP hit her, nobody witnessed the AP hitting or harming the resident. The AP denied hitting the resident. It could not be determined how the resident got the bruises on her arm and under her eye.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility filed a report with the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center. The AP no longer works at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No action taken at this time.”
Survey completed July 25, 2024: no correction orders issued.
Other investigations (1)
- April 17, 2025 · report HL299663434C
Details
Survey completed April 17, 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 110 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 COPPERFIELD HILL THE LODGE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 424914
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-05-01
- Licensed capacity
- 110
- Licensee
- COPPERFIELD HILL THE LODGE
- County
- Hennepin County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Lucinda Gardner
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 1.4 mi, nursing home 0.3 mi, pharmacy 2.5 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- North Memorial Health Hospital, Robbinsdale. 1.4 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 1 of 5 stars. Location approximate.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Good Samaritan Society - Specialty Care Community, Robbinsdale. 0.3 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Good Samaritan Society - Home Care, Robbinsdale. 0.1 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Hy-Vee Pharmacy. 2.5 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55422 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fkc - Robbinsdale Dialysis, Robbinsdale, 0.0 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars)
Davita Robbinsdale Dialysis, Robbinsdale, 0.8 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fmc Dialysis - Golden Valley, Golden Valley, 2.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 28 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55422.
North Memorial Home Hlth Hospc, office in Robbinsdale, 0.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Moments Hospice, office in Golden Valley, 2.9 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 1 of 5 stars)
Grace Hospice, office in Minneapolis, 3.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Twin Cities Physicians Professional Corporation, Golden Valley. 2.6 miles away, straight line. 3 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 low; 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 low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, tornado relatively moderate, heat wave relatively moderate, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)
A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.
Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record
Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.
- The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
What we checked12 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: no FEMA wildfire rating of moderate or higher here |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Copperfield Hill the Lodge provide?
Copperfield Hill the Lodge is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 110 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Copperfield Hill the Lodge?
No. We publish state licensing details for Copperfield Hill the Lodge 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 Copperfield Hill the Lodge cost?
Assisted Living in Hennepin County typically starts at $2,500 to $4,400 a month. Based on 18 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Copperfield Hill the Lodge does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Copperfield Hill the Lodge?
Use Copperfield Hill the Lodge's website, copperfieldhill.com, or visit at 4020 Lakeland Avenue North, Robbinsdale, MN 55422.
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