Golden Bright Homes

Last evaluation

July 10, 2026

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

2 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

0 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (July 10, 2026, state report D9DK11)

MDH: “On July 6, 2026, through July 10, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed July 10, 2026: 9 correction orders

• Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 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 the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed, implemented, and reviewed the staffing plan at least twice per year.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed, implemented, and reviewed the staffing plan at least twice per year. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

  Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”

• 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 570: 144G.42 Subdivision 1 Display of license Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to display the original current license at the main entrance of the assisted living facility as required.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to display the original current license at the main entrance of the assisted living facility as required. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

  Rule cited: “The original current license must be displayed at the main entrance of each assisted living facility. The facility must provide a copy of the license to any person who requests it.”

• Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) Days
  Details

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

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

  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 post an emergency preparedness plan prominently.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to post an emergency preparedness plan prominently. This had the potential to impact on all residents, staff, and visitors to 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 [...]”

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 780 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
• Tag 810 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (b-F) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00

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

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• October 14, 2024 · report HL380872722M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility and individual responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to provide supervision and health care. As a result, the resident became suicidal and attempted to harm himself.”

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

  “The facility and alleged perpetrator (AP) were responsible for the maltreatment.”

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

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility and alleged perpetrator (AP) were responsible for the maltreatment. The resident had a history of self-harm. Although the resident was not physically injured and returned to the facility, the facility and AP failed to ensure specific measures were in place to minimize his risk of self-harm prior to the incident occurring and afterwards. The facility failed to receive physician orders upon the resident's admission and the resident's antipsychotic medication (Seroquel) on the medication administration record (MAR) did not match the clinic records of his prescribed medications. [...]”

  Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”

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

  Survey completed September 12, 2024: 6 correction orders

  • Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the individualized abuse prevention plans (IAPP) accurately reflected the resident's vulnerabilities, and failed to implement person centered, individualized interventions to minimize the risk of abuse/harm for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the individualized abuse prevention plans (IAPP) accurately reflected the resident's vulnerabilities, and failed to implement person centered, individualized interventions to minimize the risk of abuse/harm for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to cause serious injury. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”

  • Tag 690: 144G.43 Subdivision 1 Resident record Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) Days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure entries in resident progress notes were authenticated with the name and title of the person making the entry for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure entries in resident progress notes were authenticated with the name and title of the person making the entry for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Assisted living facilities must maintain records for each resident for whom it is providing services. [...]”

  • Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee allowed unlicensed personnel (ULP) direct resident contact, access to resident health information and property without a cleared background study for one of one employee (ULP-E) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee allowed unlicensed personnel (ULP) direct resident contact, access to resident health information and property without a cleared background study for one of one employee (ULP-E) with records reviewed. This affected all residents. [...]”

    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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document medication administration accurately and failed to transcribe medication orders/prescriptions accurately, resulting in medication errors for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document medication administration accurately and failed to transcribe medication orders/prescriptions accurately, resulting in medication errors for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed. As a result, R1 required hospitalization because the licensee failed to administer insulin injections. R1 went to the hospital for suicidal ideation and the licensee had several mediation dosing errors with R1's psychiatric medications. [...]”

    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 1820: 144G.71 Subd. 13 Prescriptions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to obtain valid prescription orders for medicaion management and maintained prescription orders in the resident licensee medical record for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to obtain valid prescription orders for medicaion management and maintained prescription orders in the resident licensee medical record for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “There must be a current written or electronically recorded prescription as defined in section 151.01, subdivision 16a, for all prescribed medications that the assisted living facility is managing for the resident.”

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

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two resident(s) reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two resident(s) reviewed (R1, R2) were 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.”

• October 14, 2024 · report HL380875581M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility and individual responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to provide supervision which resulted in the resident abusing substances and causing disturbances.”

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

  “The facility and alleged perpetrator (AP) were responsible for the maltreatment.”

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

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility and alleged perpetrator (AP) were responsible for the maltreatment. The AP failed to assess and implement services and individualized interventions to manage the resident's mental health, substance abuse, and volatile behavior. The facility staff failed to provide adequate supervision and provide de-escalation to the resident, often relying on law enforcement to respond and calm her down. Law enforcement responded and provided intervention fifty-one times within three months.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility contacted law enforcement and discharged the resident.”

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

  Survey completed September 12, 2024: 6 correction orders

  • Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the individualized abuse prevention plans (IAPP) accurately reflected the resident's vulnerabilities, and failed to implement person centered, individualized interventions to minimize the risk of abuse/harm for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the individualized abuse prevention plans (IAPP) accurately reflected the resident's vulnerabilities, and failed to implement person centered, individualized interventions to minimize the risk of abuse/harm for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to cause serious injury. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”

  • Tag 690: 144G.43 Subdivision 1 Resident record Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) Days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure entries in resident progress notes were authenticated with the name and title of the person making the entry for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure entries in resident progress notes were authenticated with the name and title of the person making the entry for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Assisted living facilities must maintain records for each resident for whom it is providing services. [...]”

  • Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee allowed unlicensed personnel (ULP) direct resident contact, access to resident health information and property without a cleared background study for one of one employee (ULP-E) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee allowed unlicensed personnel (ULP) direct resident contact, access to resident health information and property without a cleared background study for one of one employee (ULP-E) with records reviewed. This affected all residents. [...]”

    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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document medication administration accurately and failed to transcribe medication orders/prescriptions accurately, resulting in medication errors for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document medication administration accurately and failed to transcribe medication orders/prescriptions accurately, resulting in medication errors for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed. As a result, R1 required hospitalization because the licensee failed to administer insulin injections. R1 went to the hospital for suicidal ideation and the licensee had several mediation dosing errors with R1's psychiatric medications. [...]”

    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 1820: 144G.71 Subd. 13 Prescriptions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to obtain valid prescription orders for medicaion management and maintained prescription orders in the resident licensee medical record for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to obtain valid prescription orders for medicaion management and maintained prescription orders in the resident licensee medical record for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “There must be a current written or electronically recorded prescription as defined in section 151.01, subdivision 16a, for all prescribed medications that the assisted living facility is managing for the resident.”

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

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two resident(s) reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two resident(s) reviewed (R1, R2) were 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.”

Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.

MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 5 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.