Lilisity

Assisted Living and Memory Care

Ely Carefree Living by Oxford

140 South 2nd Avenue West, Ely, MN 55731 · Map
Licensed for 48 residents · ELY CAREFREE LIVING BY OXFORD LIVING

State license active
Is this your community? Claim this listing

Ely Carefree Living by Oxford is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Ely, Minnesota. It is licensed for 48 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.

Assisted LivingAlso memory care
48 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

1Substantiated investigations

Last evaluation: Jul 7, 2025. See the record

License

Active, 48 residents

Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425561, current license dated Apr 29, 2026. Licensee ELY CAREFREE LIVING BY OXFORD LIVING.

Nearest emergency room

0.1 miles

Ely - Bloomenson Community Hospital.

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
Ely Carefree Living by Oxford this community48Not publishedActive1 substantiated
Babbit Carefree Living by Oxfo13.5 mi38Not publishedActive1 substantiated
Vermilion Senior Living19.9 mi24Not publishedActive1 substantiated
Aurora Carefree Living by Oxfo30.9 mi52Not publishedActive0 substantiated
Carefreeliving Cook by Oxford37.8 mi34Not publishedActive0 substantiated
State inspection record1 substantiated
Last evaluation
July 7, 2025
Evaluations on record
2
Investigations substantiated
1 kept 7 years
Inconclusive
0 kept 4 years
Unsubstantiated
0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (July 7, 2025, state report 1RP611)

MDH: “On July 7, 2025, through July 9, 2025., the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed July 9, 2025: 11 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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) · fine: $500.00 assessed
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control for two of five employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-K, ULP-O).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control for two of five employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-K, ULP-O). [...]”

    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 (a) Staff records Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for two of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-B, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for two of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-B, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”

  • 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 develop a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content as defined in Appendix Z. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure the missing resident plan was reviewed quarterly.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content as defined in Appendix Z. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure the missing resident plan was reviewed quarterly. 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 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 keep the facility in compliance with the Minnesota Fire Code.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to keep the facility in compliance with the Minnesota Fire Code. The deficient conditions have the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”

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

Show all 11
  • 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 ensure two of two refrigerators (House 100 and House 200), storing medications maintained an acceptable temperature and medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommended temperature.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of two refrigerators (House 100 and House 200), storing medications maintained an acceptable temperature and medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommended temperature. [...]”

    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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with opened and expiration dates for three of three medication carts (House 100, House 140, House 200), whose medications were stored by the licensee.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with opened and expiration dates for three of three medication carts (House 100, House 140, House 200), whose medications were stored by the licensee. In addition, the licensee failed to monitor for expired medications for one of three medication carts (House 100). [...]”

    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 each resident and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of two residents (R3) who received treatment and therapy services.

    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 each resident and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of two residents (R3) who received treatment and therapy services. [...]”

    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 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 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 hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment on and around the property for the facility.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment on and around the property for the facility. This deficient practice had the ability to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”

    Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) an assessment of safety risks must be performed on and around the property. [...]”

  • Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) 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 medication administration by unlicensed personnel (ULP)-L for one of one resident (R2) whose medications

    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 medication administration by unlicensed personnel (ULP)-L for one of one resident (R2) whose medications were not administered as directed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”

  • Tag 2410: 144G.91 Subd. 13 Personal and treatment privacy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure privacy was maintained for one of two residents (R2) while receiving personal cares.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure privacy was maintained for one of two residents (R2) while receiving personal cares. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to consideration of their privacy, individuality, and cultural identity as related to their social, religious, and psychological well-being. [...]”

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 510 (144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program): $500.00
  • Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00

Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $1,000.00.

Earlier evaluations (1)
  • February 15, 2023: report 1BI011 · 17 correction orders
    Details

    Survey completed February 15, 2023: 17 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 ensure infection control standards were followed to disinfect reusable resident equipment by one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-J).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed to disinfect reusable resident equipment by one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-J). [...]”

      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 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 develop a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content and post the EPP prominently.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content and post the EPP prominently. 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 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 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 required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct the 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 required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct the 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. [...]”

    Show all 17
    • 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 assisted living contract with the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R5).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R5). This had the potential to affect all 39 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 1500: 144G.63 Subd. 5 Required annual training Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an employee received all the required content for annual training for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee (registered nurse (RN)-K).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an employee received all the required content for annual training for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee (registered nurse (RN)-K). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) All staff that perform direct services must complete at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment. [...]”

    • Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) 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 service plan included a licensee signature or other authentication by the licensee to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of three residents (R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included a licensee signature or other authentication by the licensee to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of three residents (R2). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”

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

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure service plans included the required content for three of three residents (R1, R3, R5).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans included the required content for three of three residents (R1, R3, R5). 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 [...]”

      Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”

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

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication management record to include all required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R5).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication management record to include all required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R5). [...]”

      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 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure refrigerated medications were maintained at manufacturer recommended temperatures by failing to monitor and document medication refrigerator temperatures for two of three medication refrigerators.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure refrigerated medications were maintained at manufacturer recommended temperatures by failing to monitor and document medication refrigerator temperatures for two of three medication refrigerators. [...]”

      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, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label for R1, R8.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label for R1, R8. In addition, the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with opened or expiration dates for R10. [...]”

      Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”

    • Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to include a written statement of the treatment or therapy services to be provided on the service plan for one of three residents (R1).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to include a written statement of the treatment or therapy services to be provided on the service plan for one of three residents (R1). [...]”

      Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”

    • Tag 1960: 144G.72 Subd. 5 Documentation of administration of treatments Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure specific written instructions for each resident were documented in three of three resident's records (R1, R7, R8) who received blood glucose monitoring.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure specific written instructions for each resident were documented in three of three resident's records (R1, R7, R8) who received blood glucose monitoring. [...]”

      Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”

    • Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 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 hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment on and around the property for the facility.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment on and around the property for the facility. This deficient practice had the ability to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”

      Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”

    • 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 the required dementia care policies and procedures were provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representatives for two of three residents (R1, R5).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required dementia care policies and procedures were provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representatives for two of three residents (R1, R5). [...]”

      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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a comprehensive evaluation for activities and an individual activity plan (IAP) for one of one resident (R2) who received services under an assisted living with dementia care license.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop a comprehensive evaluation for activities and an individual activity plan (IAP) for one of one resident (R2) who received services under an assisted living with dementia care license. [...]”

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

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

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

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

  • November 23, 2022 · report HL258911805M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
    Details

    Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused the resident when the AP stood over the resident and repeatedly yelled at the resident for several minutes, and then aggressively grabbed the resident's wrists and threatened to break the resident's hands.”

    “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”

    “The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”

    Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (individual responsibility).

    MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. Facility staff who witnessed the incident stated the AP lost his temper and stood over the resident and repeatedly yelled at him. The AP aggressively grabbed both of the resident's wrists and threatened to break his hands. An audio recording of the incident was reviewed, and the AP was heard repeatedly yelling and threatening the resident, and acknowledged he scared the resident.”

    Action taken by facility: “Facility staff intervened to stop the abuse, investigated the incident, and reported to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center. Facility staff were educated on abuse and abuse reporting, dealing with difficult behaviors, and caregiver burn out. The AP is no longer employed by the facility.”

    Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

    Survey completed November 2, 2022: 1 correction order

    • Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observations, interviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure one of one residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. R1 was abused. Findings include: On November 2, 2022, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination that abuse occurred, and an individual staff member was responsible for the maltreatment in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. The MDH concluded there was a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred.”

      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.”

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 48 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 ELY CAREFREE LIVING BY OXFORD LIVING
License type
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
License number
425561
License status
Active
Current license dated
2026-04-29
Licensed capacity
48
Licensee
ELY CAREFREE LIVING BY OXFORD LIVING
Administrator/Authorized Agent
Demetrius Bray

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 with violations found

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.

  • Findings for Aug 30, 2013 to Aug 29, 2015. Violations found: Overtime. Back wages: $14,172 owed to 34 employees. Employer as DOL recorded it: Carefree Living - Ely (Spectrum Health Companies). Case 1764862.

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.

Location and nearby careNearest hospital 0.1 mi, nursing home 0.1 mi, pharmacy 1.3 mi
Nearest hospital with an emergency room
Ely - Bloomenson Community Hospital, Ely. 0.1 miles away, straight line.
Nearest Medicare nursing home
Boundary Waters Care Center, Ely. 0.1 miles away, straight line.
Nearest home health agency office
Aveanna Home Health, Hibbing. 59.5 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
Nearest pharmacy
Essentia. 1.3 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
Area
USDA classes ZIP code 55731 as rural (rural area).
Hospice
3 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55731.
Nearest geriatric medicine practice
Polinsky Medical Rehabilitation Center, Duluth. 75.2 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 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 low, wildfire relatively low, tornado very low, heat wave relatively moderate. 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 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.

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, 2026See above
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
The community’s own websiteNo plain statements of services found
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Ely Carefree Living by Oxford provide?

Ely Carefree Living by Oxford is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Ely, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 48 residents.

Does Lilisity rate Ely Carefree Living by Oxford?

No. We publish state licensing details for Ely Carefree Living by Oxford 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 Ely Carefree Living by Oxford 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. Ely Carefree Living by Oxford does not publish its prices.

How do I contact Ely Carefree Living by Oxford?

Use Ely Carefree Living by Oxford's website, carefreeliving.com/ely, or visit at 140 South 2nd Avenue West, Ely, MN 55731.

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