Assisted Living and Memory Care
Ecumen Lakeview Commons
1200 North Lakewood Drive, Maplewood, MN 55119 · Map
Licensed for 106 residents · ECUMEN LAKEVIEW COMMONS
Ecumen Lakeview Commons is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Maplewood, Minnesota. It is licensed for 106 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
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, 106 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425730, current license dated Sep 1, 2026. Licensee ECUMEN LAKEVIEW COMMONS.
Nearest emergency room
3.6 miles
M Health Fairview St John'S Hospital, rated 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecumen Lakeview Commons this community | 106 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Dph Sp | 0.4 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Triple E Home Care & Assisted | 0.7 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| People's Choice Home Care Serv | 0.8 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Executive Health Services | 0.9 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- December 5, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 2 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (December 5, 2025, state report ZK4J11)
MDH: “On December 1, 2025, through December 5, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed December 5, 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) days · 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 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 · 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: “(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 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 a registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment including a reassessment no more
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment including a reassessment no more than 14 calendar days from the start of services for one of four residents (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
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 Physical Environment): $500.00
- Tag 780 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $1,000.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- March 9, 2023: report XBRI11 · 6 correction orders
Details
Survey completed March 9, 2023: 6 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 had the potential to affect all residents of the assisted living facility. [...]”
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 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 a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on a record review and interview, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 820: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (g) 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 facilities that were not a distinct hazard to life.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide facilities that were not a distinct hazard to life. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(g) Existing construction or elements, including assisted living facilities that were registered as housing with services establishments under chapter 144D prior to August 1, 2021, shall be permitted to continue in use provided such use does not constitute a [...]”
- Tag 950: 144G.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing with the required verbatim notice, on a page
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing with the required verbatim notice, on a page separate from the contract, for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Before or at the time of execution of an assisted living contract, an assisted living facility must offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing in the contract and must provide the following verbatim notice on a [...]”
- 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 develop and implement the required policies and procedures for assisted living with dementia care (ALFDC), and ensure the policies were provided to residents or the resident's legal and /or designated representative at the time of move-in for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement the required policies and procedures for assisted living with dementia care (ALFDC), and ensure the policies were provided to residents or the resident's legal and /or designated representative at the time of move-in for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). [...]”
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 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 provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical or nursing standards for one of two residents (R5) who utilized bed rails or grab bars.
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, medical or nursing standards for one of two residents (R5) who utilized bed rails or grab bars. Further, the licensee failed to ensure supplemental oxygen (O2) tanks were stored safely to prevent tipping for one of two residents (R5) reviewed for O2 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.
- 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)
- October 20, 2025 · report HL201146483M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when the AP failed to assist the resident to the bathroom per her care plan. The resident attempted to walk to the bathroom independently, fell, and broke her leg.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP started her shift in the memory care unit at 10:40 p.m. Video surveillance showed the AP spent her entire shift in the activity room until the resident fell at 1:24 a.m. The AP failed to assist the resident to the toilet at 12:00 a.m. per the resident's care plan. At 1:24 a.m., the resident attempted to transfer herself to the toilet, fell, and broke her leg. The AP failed to provide all scheduled services and care to the residents in the memory care unit before the incident.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility completed an internal investigation. The AP no longer worked 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 October 10, 2025: 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 an individual person 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.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
- June 12, 2024 · report HL201143303M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to implement fall interventions after the resident returned to the facility from the hospital after a second fall with severe pain. The resident fell again a few hours later and was hospitalized with a spinal fracture in the low back (Lumbar) area, L2. The resident spent two weeks in the hospital and was admitted to hospice when she returned to the facility. The resident died two weeks later from her injuries.”
“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. Although nursing staff assessed and identified the resident had a history and at risk for falls, they failed to monitor, develop, and implement additional fall interventions to prevent future falls after the resident had three falls within several hours. The resident fractured her spine and was hospitalized. The resident never returned to her baseline after her falls. The resident died a few weeks later.”
Action taken by facility: “When the resident returned to the facility, hospice initiated a mechanical lift, matts on the floor beside the bed, and a Broda (high back and used for positioning) chair.”
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 23, 2024: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to an up-to-date plan, and subject to acceptable health care and medical or nursing standards for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed for falls.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to an up-to-date plan, and subject to acceptable health care and medical or nursing standards for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed for falls. R2 had three falls within 24 hours and required hospitalization for a spinal fracture following the third fall. The licensee failed to ensure new interventions were implemented following R2's falls. [...]”
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.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of two resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of two 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.”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G
Inconclusive investigations (2)
- July 25, 2025 · report HL201142642M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when the AP failed to follow the resident's care plan. After the AP left the resident in her wheelchair unsupervised in her apartment, the resident tried to get out of her chair and fell. The resident broke her hip and died a few days later.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. The resident was agitated trying to grab at people during dinner. AP-1 and AP-2 brought the resident to her room to help her calm down. Staff often brought the resident to her apartment to decease stimuli and was indicated as an intervention on the resident's care plan. AP-1 and AP-2 were unaware the resident's care plan changed three days prior to the incident and indicated the resident should remain in common areas.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility reported the incident to the appropriate people. The facility completed an internal investigation and follow-up education was completed with facility staff.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed June 20, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- August 23, 2023 · report HL201145703M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “Unknown facility staff neglected a resident when they provided hot coffee that scalded the resident's mouth and lips.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. The resident was found with dark discoloration of her lips and tongue. Initially the facility registered nurse and hospice registered nurse thought the resident was burned with coffee. Following a facility investigation, it was determined the resident may have bled internally due to the resident's diagnosis of thrombocytopenia (a condition that occurred when the platelet count in your blood is too low causing bleeding.)”
Action taken by facility: “The facility notified the hospice nurse and physicians. The resident's diet was changed to liquids, ice cream and applesauce. Facility staff placed a do not use sign on the resident's microwave. New physician orders for pain management and treatments for burns were obtained. The facility also completed an internal investigation.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed August 14, 2023: no correction orders issued.
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- December 23, 2024 · report HL201146482M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected resident #1 and resident #2 when they failed to provide appropriate supervision for resident #1 and resident #2. As a result, resident #1 and resident #2 had an altercation that led to resident #1's fall and a fractured pelvis.”
“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. At the time of the altercation between resident #1 and resident #2, staff were providing the residents with appropriate supervision. The altercation between resident #1 and resident #2 was a sudden and unforeseen event between resident #1 and resident #2.”
Action taken by facility: “Following the incident, resident #2 was escorted to her apartment. Resident #1 was transported to a hospital.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed December 2, 2024: no correction orders issued.
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
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 106 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 ECUMEN LAKEVIEW COMMONS
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 425730
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-09-01
- Licensed capacity
- 106
- Licensee
- ECUMEN LAKEVIEW COMMONS
- County
- Ramsey County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Ashley Bontjes
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.
Staff pay and workplace safety1 federal wage case, no violations found; 1 OSHA inspection, 1 violation cited
Federal records about how the employer here treats its staff.
Federal wage and hour cases
The Department of Labor checks that staff are paid minimum wage and overtime as the law requires.
DOL also concluded 1 case here with no violations found, most recently for a period ending Feb 21, 2005.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division enforcement data, loaded Oct 15, 2026. Concluded cases only. The dates are the period in which DOL found violations, not when the case opened or closed. Back wages are what the employer agreed to pay; penalties are what DOL assessed. DOL does not publish a page for each case, so search the dataset by case number.
OSHA workplace safety inspections
OSHA inspects workplaces for staff safety, such as lifting, needles, chemicals and workplace violence. It does not inspect resident care.
- Mar 30, 2022: fatality or catastrophe inspection, partial (safety). Case closed Aug 7, 2023. 1 violation cited (1 serious). Penalties: $25,000 proposed, $25,000 now. OSHA record. OSHA recorded the employer as 104239 - Ecumen Lakeview Commons.
Details
- Serious: Cited rule 1910.30(b)(1). Penalty $25,000 proposed, $25,000 now. To be fixed by Aug 21, 2022. Contested by the employer.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, as of Oct 15, 2026, inspections since 2016. Penalties can change while a case is open or contested.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 3.6 mi, nursing home 2.2 mi, pharmacy 1.3 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview St John'S Hospital, Maplewood. 3.6 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Maplewood Rehabilitation Center, Maplewood. 2.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Accentcare Fairview Home Health - East LLC, Oakdale. 2.0 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.3 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55119 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Sun Ray Dialysis Unit, Saint Paul, 2.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Fmc Dialysis Services Of St Paul, Saint Paul, 2.6 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Maplewood Dialysis Center, Maplewood, 3.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 25 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55119.
Beyond Hospice, office in Oakdale, 1.7 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars)
St Croix Hospice, office in Oakdale, 3.0 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Suite Living Hospice, LLC, office in White Bear Lake, 4.1 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Saint Paul. 8.1 miles away, straight line. 1 geriatric medicine doctor 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, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, 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 state recorded a finding in October 2025. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- 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?
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 | See above |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | See above |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here very low |
| 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 | Could not read the site |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Ecumen Lakeview Commons provide?
Ecumen Lakeview Commons is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Maplewood, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 106 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Ecumen Lakeview Commons?
No. We publish state licensing details for Ecumen Lakeview Commons 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 Ecumen Lakeview Commons 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. Ecumen Lakeview Commons does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Ecumen Lakeview Commons?
Use Ecumen Lakeview Commons's website, ecumenlakeviewcommons.org, or visit at 1200 North Lakewood Drive, Maplewood, MN 55119.
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