Assisted Living and Memory Care
Global Pointe Senior Living
5200 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN 55416 · Map
Licensed for 115 residents · GLOBAL POINTE SENIOR LIVING
Global Pointe Senior Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Golden Valley, Minnesota. It is licensed for 115 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 Global Pointe Senior Living says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
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, 115 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425755, current license dated Jun 1, 2026. Licensee GLOBAL POINTE SENIOR LIVING.
Nearest emergency room
2.6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Pointe Senior Living this community | 115 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Legacy Care Home | 0.1 mi | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Merrcy Care Home | 0.8 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| New Perspective Golden Valley | 1.0 mi | 92 | $2,300/mo | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Epiphany Care Homes | 1.0 mi | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- March 13, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (March 13, 2025, state report 9FL711)
MDH: “On March 10, 2025, through March 13, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed March 13, 2025: 5 correction orders
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program 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 establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control related to handwashing, glove use, and proper technique for disposal of used needles for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control related to handwashing, glove use, and proper technique for disposal of used needles for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B). The deficient practice had the potential to affect residents, employees, 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 (a) Staff records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure personnel records included all the required content for one of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure personnel records included all the required content for one of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-B). [...]”
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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative for one of one resident (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed for one of six residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed for one of six residents (R4). 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 medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 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 all
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure all medications were securely locked in substantially constructed compartments and permitted only authorized personnel to have access. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
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.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 510 (144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- June 7, 2023: report UREL11 · 30 correction orders
Details
Survey completed September 6, 2023: 15 correction orders
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
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 (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
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 (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
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 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
Show all 15
- Tag 970: 144G.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited (re-issued) scope/level letter C
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required (re-issued) Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-M).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-M). [...]”
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 (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
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 (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication (re-issued) scope/level letter D
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications (re-issued) scope/level letter D
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
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 (re-issued) scope/level letter D
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
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 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications (re-issued) scope/level letter D
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services (re-issued) Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R12) who utilized a bed rail.
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 one resident (R12) who utilized a bed rail. [...]”
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.”
Survey completed June 7, 2023: 15 correction orders
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B) with
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis (TB) 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 of Tuberculosis Elimination, as published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis (TB) 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 of Tuberculosis Elimination, as published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. [...]”
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
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 with dementia 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 [...]”
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary for two of three discharged residents (R1 and R9).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary for two of three discharged residents (R1 and R9). 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”
- 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 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 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 15
- 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 facility'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 facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all 103 residents living within the assisted living with Dementia Care 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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation greater than four days for one of one resident (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation greater than four days for one of one resident (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: IMMEDIATE · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for four of six employees (licensed assisted living director (LALD)-C, clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-D, and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for four of six employees (licensed assisted living director (LALD)-C, clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-D, and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G). This resulted in issuance of an immediate correction order on June 6, 2023, at approximately 3:00 p.m. [...]”
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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment no more than 14-days after initiation of services and reassessments not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last date of the assessment for four of four residents (R3, R4, R5, and R7) as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment no more than 14-days after initiation of services and reassessments not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last date of the assessment for four of four residents (R3, R4, R5, and R7) as required. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for four of four residents (R3, R4, R5, R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for four of four residents (R3, R4, R5, R7). [...]”
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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medication administration was documented accurately in the medication administration record (MAR) for one of three residents (R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medication administration was documented accurately in the medication administration record (MAR) for one of three residents (R7). [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to store prescription medication securely and permit only authorized personnel to have access for one of nine residents (R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to store prescription medication securely and permit only authorized personnel to have access for one of nine residents (R7). [...]”
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 dated when opened for one of nine residents (R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications were dated when opened for one of nine residents (R7). 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 [...]”
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 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide documentation in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include the medication strength, prescription number, quantity, date of disposition, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of three discharged residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide documentation in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include the medication strength, prescription number, quantity, date of disposition, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of three discharged residents (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Immediate · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical or nursing standards for two of two residents (R2, R3) who utilized bed rails.
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 two of two residents (R2, R3) who utilized bed rails. This resulted in issuance of an immediate correction order on June 5, 2023, at approximately 4:00 p.m. [...]”
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.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $3,000.00
- Tag 2310 (144g.91 Subd. 4 (a) - Appropriate Care And Services): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $6,000.00.
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- July 28, 2026 · report HL356213307M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), an unlicensed staff member, neglected the resident when he failed to provide safety checks to the resident during his overnight shift. The resident sustained an injury during the night that wasn't discovered until the next morning.”
“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 failed to complete the resident's scheduled overnight safety checks. The resident allegedly fell and was found by staff the following morning. The resident was transported to the hospital for evaluation. During the investigation it was found the AP had a pattern of not completing services for residents and documenting that the services were completed.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility had the resident transported to the hospital and terminated the employee.”
Action taken by MDH: “Insert appropriate action from standard language document”
Survey completed July 8, 2026: 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, 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
- November 8, 2024 · report HL356215821M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident by failing to complete the daily wellness check as outlined in the care plan. Later, the resident was found unresponsive in his room only after his family requested someone check on him.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The unlicensed caregiver #1 and #2 failed to perform a wellness check on the resident and falsely documented that they did so on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Additionally, an office assistant received a call from the resident's family, who had requested a wellness check after not hearing from the resident for three days. However, the office assistant did not relay the message to an unlicensed caregiver for almost three hours. The resident was later found unresponsive and was sent to the hospital for further evaluation, where he passed away two days later due to a stroke.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility provided re-training for all staff on daily wellness and safety checks.”
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 October 21, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident 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 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- November 3, 2025 · report HL356214722M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), a facility staff member, abused resident #1 when the AP grabbed and attempted to restrain resident #1 during a physical altercation while in resident #2's apartment. The facility neglected resident #1 when resident #1 was found with bruising on his lower arms and untreated skin tears on his hand.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse and neglect were not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse and neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse and neglect were not substantiated. Although an altercation occurred the incident did not rise to the level of abuse. When resident #1's entered resident #2's apartment the AP grabbed resident #1's arm to keep resident #2 safe. The next day when resident #1's wounds were observed, facility staff cleansed and applied a dressing. The facility nurse assessed and updated the medical provider.”
Action taken by facility: “Reeducation was provided to facility staff. The facility contacted the residents primary care provider to re-assess the need for medication changes and updated care orders.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed October 16, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- October 1, 2024 · report HL356216233C
Details
Survey completed August 20, 2024: no correction orders issued.
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
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 115 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 GLOBAL POINTE SENIOR LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 425755
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-06-01
- Licensed capacity
- 115
- Licensee
- GLOBAL POINTE SENIOR LIVING
- County
- Hennepin County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Devin Krautkremer
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 2.6 mi, nursing home 1.5 mi, pharmacy 1.4 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- North Memorial Health Hospital, Robbinsdale. 2.6 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 1 of 5 stars. Location approximate.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- The Villas at St Louis Park, Saint Louis Park. 1.5 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Lifespark Home Health, Saint Louis Park. 0.7 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.4 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55416 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fmc Dialysis - Golden Valley, Golden Valley, 2.0 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Concerto Minnesota LLC, Saint Louis Park, 2.1 miles away, straight line
Davita St Louis Park Dialysis Center, Saint Louis Park, 2.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 26 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55416.
Lifesprk Hospice LLC, office in Saint Louis Park, 0.7 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 2 of 5 stars)
Moments Hospice, office in Golden Valley, 1.1 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 1 of 5 stars)
Lake Valley Hospice LLC, office in St. Louis Park, 1.7 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Twin Cities Physicians Professional Corporation, Golden Valley. 1.5 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 moderate, 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 July 2026. 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 | 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: 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 | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Global Pointe Senior Living provide?
Global Pointe Senior Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Golden Valley, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 115 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Global Pointe Senior Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Global Pointe Senior Living but no score, rating, or ranking. Only communities on the Top Communities list or with a Senior Living Alliance Excellence Award, both based on phone-verified resident and family interviews, are ranked.
How much does Global Pointe Senior Living 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. Global Pointe Senior Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Global Pointe Senior Living?
Use Global Pointe Senior Living's website, globalpointeseniorliving.com, or visit at 5200 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN 55416.
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