Assisted Living and Memory Care
Harmony Place
455 Main Avenue North, Harmony, MN 55939 · Map
Licensed for 60 residents · HARMONY PLACE
Harmony Place is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Harmony, Minnesota. It is licensed for 60 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
This community does not publish its prices.
Area costs
Lilisity’s independent report
What the public record shows
Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.
License
Active, 60 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424846, current license dated Apr 28, 2026. Licensee HARMONY PLACE.
Nearest emergency room
13.4 miles
Regional Health Services Of Howard County, rated 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harmony Place this community | 60 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Traditions of Preston | 8.9 mi | 26 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| The Meadows of Mabel | 12.6 mi | 22 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Evans Senior Living Community - Memory Care | 13.2 mi | 16 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Evans Senior Living Community Assisted Living | 13.2 mi | 54 | Not published | Active | No record |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- August 7, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 3 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 3 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (August 7, 2026, state report G1RD11)
MDH: “On August 3, 2026, through August 7, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed August 7, 2026: 18 correction orders
- Tag 430: 144G.40 Subd. 2 Uniform checklist disclosure of services Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a copy of the Uniform Disclosure of Assisted Living Services and Amenities (UDALSA) with the required content for two of three residents (R4, R11).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a copy of the Uniform Disclosure of Assisted Living Services and Amenities (UDALSA) with the required content for two of three residents (R4, R11). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must provide to prospective residents: (1) a disclosure of the categories of assisted living licenses available and the category of license held by the facility; (2) a written checklist listing all services permitted under [...]”
- 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 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post the required contact information for the Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post the required contact information for the Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
- Tag 640: 144G.42 Subd. 7 Posting information for reporting suspected c Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting 911 emergency number as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting 911 emergency number as required. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility shall support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment by: (1) posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided [...]”
- 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 employee records contained the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H). [...]”
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. [...]”
Show all 18
- Tag 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 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 · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Immediate · fine: $1,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was current, affiliated, and eligible on NET Study 2.0 (web-based system for submitting background study requests to the Department of Human Services (DHS) with the assisted living license for one of 29 employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP-I).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was current, affiliated, and eligible on NET Study 2.0 (web-based system for submitting background study requests to the Department of Human Services (DHS) with the assisted living license for one of 29 employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP-I). This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. This resulted in an immediate correction order issued on August 4, 2026. [...]”
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 1420: 144G.62 Subd. 2 Delegation of assisted living services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, licensee failed to provide clear instructions by a registered nurse (RN) to unlicensed personnel (ULP) for delegated foley catheter bag emptying/exchange for one of one resident (R11). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) When the registered nurse or licensed health professional delegates tasks to unlicensed personnel, that person must ensure that prior to the delegation the unlicensed personnel is trained in the proper methods to perform the tasks or procedures for each [...]”
- 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) completed a reassessment 14 days after admission for one of five residents (R7) and further failed to complete a reassessment not to exceed 90 days for four of five residents (R4, R5, R6, R11).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a reassessment 14 days after admission for one of five residents (R7) and further failed to complete a reassessment not to exceed 90 days for four of five residents (R4, R5, R6, R11). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- 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 ordered for one of eleven residents (R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of eleven 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 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 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 label a time sensitive medication with an opened date for two of 11 residents (R7, R4) with medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to label a time sensitive medication with an opened date for two of 11 residents (R7, R4) with medication administration. [...]”
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,
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 and documented those instructions in the resident record for one of three residents (R7) with treatments. [...]”
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 ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “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 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 policies and procedures required in assisted living facilities with dementia care were created and provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representative at the time of move-in for three of three residents (R4, R7, R11).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in assisted living facilities with dementia care were created and provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representative at the time of move-in for three of three residents (R4, R7, R11). [...]”
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 2240: 144G.90 Subdivision 1 Assisted living bill of rights; notification Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the licensee's complaint procedure was provided and a written acknowledgement was received for two of three residents (R4, R11).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the licensee's complaint procedure was provided and a written acknowledgement was received for two of three residents (R4, R11). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility must provide the resident a written notice of the rights under section 144G.91 before the initiation of services to that resident. [...]”
- 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 follow delegated procedures for medication administration for two of eleven residents (R5, R6) as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to follow delegated procedures for medication administration for two of eleven residents (R5, R6) as required. [...]”
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 3090: 144.6502, Subd. 8 Notice to Visitors Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure signage was posted at the main entry of the building of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity, potentially affecting all residents, staff, and visitors of the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure signage was posted at the main entry of the building of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity, potentially affecting all residents, staff, and visitors of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility must post a sign at each facility entrance accessible to visitors that states: "Electronic monitoring devices, including security cameras and audio devices, may be present to record persons and activities. [...]”
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
- Tag 810 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (b-F) - Fire Protection And Physical Environmen): $500.00
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $1,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $2,000.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- February 29, 2024: report KUCZ11 · 17 correction orders
Details
Survey completed February 29, 2024: 17 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements 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) 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 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post in a conspicuous place, information about the licensee's grievance procedure with the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post in a conspicuous place, information about the licensee's grievance procedure with the required content. This had the potential to affect the licensee's current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for two of three residents (R3, R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for two of three residents (R3, R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- 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 practice and document the testing of it's emergency preparedness (EP) plan at least twice annually as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to practice and document the testing of it's emergency preparedness (EP) plan at least twice annually as required. 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 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included the required documentation related to hospitalization for one of one resident (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included the required documentation related to hospitalization for one of one resident (R3). [...]”
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, [...]”
Show all 17
- Tag 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations of unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing assisted living services were conducted by a registered nurse (RN) for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F and ULP-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations of unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing assisted living services were conducted by a registered nurse (RN) for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F and ULP-G). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Training and competency evaluations for all unlicensed personnel must include the following: (1) documentation requirements for all services provided; (2) reports of changes in the resident's condition to the supervisor designated by the facility; (3) [...]”
- Tag 1380: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (b) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations of unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing assisted living services were conducted by a registered nurse (RN) for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F and ULP-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations of unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing assisted living services were conducted by a registered nurse (RN) for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F and ULP-G). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) In addition to paragraph (a), training and competency evaluation for unlicensed personnel providing assisted living services must include: (1) observing, reporting, and documenting resident status; (2) basic knowledge of body functioning and changes in [...]”
- Tag 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual begins working for the licensee for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F, ULP-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual begins working for the licensee for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F, ULP-G). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Staff who perform delegated nursing or therapy tasks must be supervised by an appropriate licensed health professional or a registered nurse according to the assisted living facility's policy where the services are being provided to verify that the work [...]”
- Tag 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F, ULP-G) received orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations before providing services.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-F, ULP-G) received orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations before providing services. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The orientation must contain the following topics: (1) an overview of this chapter; (2) an introduction and review of the facility's policies and procedures related to the provision of assisted living services by the individual staff person; (3) handling [...]”
- Tag 1540: 144G.64 (a) TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G) completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G) completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame. [...]”
Rule cited: “(3) for assisted living facilities with dementia care, direct-care employees must have completed at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 80 working hours of the employment start date. [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) 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 three of three residents' (R3, R1, R2) service plans were developed and provided to the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure three of three residents' (R3, R1, R2) service plans were developed and provided to the residents. [...]”
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 1700: 144G.71 Subd. 2 Provision of medication management services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R2) who self-administered acetaminophen (mild to moderate pain reliever) was assessed for self-administration of medications.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R2) who self-administered acetaminophen (mild to moderate pain reliever) was assessed for self-administration of medications. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident who requests medication management services, the facility shall, prior to providing medication management services, have a registered nurse, licensed health professional, or authorized prescriber under section 151.37 conduct an [...]”
- Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for two of two residents (R3, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for two of two residents (R3, R2). [...]”
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 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 upon discharge, to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, to whom the medications were given, date of disposition, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of one discharged resident (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed upon discharge, to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, to whom the medications were given, date of disposition, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of one discharged resident (R4). [...]”
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 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in the licensing of assisted living facilities with dementia care were provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representative at the time of move-in for two of three residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures required in the licensing of assisted living facilities with dementia care were provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representative at the time of move-in for two of three residents (R1, R2). [...]”
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 2140: 144G.83 Subd. 3 Supervising staff training Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to designate a qualified person to oversee staff training in the care of individuals with dementia.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to designate a qualified person to oversee staff training in the care of individuals with dementia. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Persons providing or overseeing staff training must have experience and knowledge in the care of individuals with dementia, including: (1) two years of work experience related to Alzheimer's disease or other dementias, or in health care, gerontology, or [...]”
- Tag 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct an individualized written activity evaluation that addressed all six provisions, and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to conduct an individualized written activity evaluation that addressed all six provisions, and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation, for one of one resident (R3) who received services under the assisted living with dementia care license and resided in the secure memory care unit. [...]”
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; no immediate fines.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- January 30, 2025 · report HL215186261M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused the resident when the AP engaged in a sexual relationship with the resident.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
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, while employed at the facility, engaged in a sexual relationship with the resident while he lived at the facility and received services. Both parties admitted to having a sexual relationship that lasted for months.”
Action taken by facility: “The current owners of the facility conducted an internal investigation. The AP no longer worked at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed January 2, 2025: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
- April 11, 2023 · report HL215183703M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the facility did not provide adequate incontinence care leading to skin irritation, skin breakdown, and pain.”
“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 facility neglected the resident when the facility did not provide skin care such as bathing. The facility also neglected the resident when it failed to follow-up on reports of a rash, which was not addressed until the resident was hospitalized.”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed February 6, 2023: 4 correction orders
- Tag 110: 144G.10 Subdivision 1a Assisted living director license required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a Assisted Living Director-in-Residence (ALDIR) was listed as the Director of Record with the Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Supports (BELTSS).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a Assisted Living Director-in-Residence (ALDIR) was listed as the Director of Record with the Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Supports (BELTSS). This had the potential to affect all the licensee's residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must employ an assisted living director licensed or permitted by the Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Supports.?”
- Tag 740: 144G.43 Subd. 4 Transfer of resident records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to send all necessary medical information to an admitting licensee upon discharge from the licensee for one of one (R1) resident records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on the interview and record review, the licensee failed to send all necessary medical information to an admitting licensee upon discharge from the licensee for one of one (R1) resident records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “With the resident's knowledge and consent, if a resident is relocated to another facility or to a nursing home, or if care is transferred to another service provider, the facility must timely convey to the new facility, nursing home, or provider: (1) the [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure appropriate care and services were provided to 1 of 3 resident, R3, reviewed for staff services provided.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure appropriate care and services were provided to 1 of 3 resident, R3, reviewed for staff services provided. The licensee failed to assess R3's skin and failed to provide oversight to determine the individualized plan of care and ensured staff provided appropriate care and services. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure R3 was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure R3 was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual staff person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility.”
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 110: 144G.10 Subdivision 1a Assisted living director license required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Inconclusive investigations (3)
- February 7, 2023 · report HL21518002M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to assess a resident's change in condition and failed to notify the resident's physician of the observed change.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. There is not enough evidence available to support if the resident had an observed change in condition, and staff who worked at the time of the incident were not available for interview.”
Action taken by facility: “None.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed September 1, 2022: no correction orders issued.
- February 7, 2023 · report HL21518004M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff failed to notify the resident's physician of a fall, resulting in a delay of care.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. Due to conflicting information and lack of documentation, it is unable to be determined if staff failed to immediately notify the physician and if this resulted in a delay in care. However, when the resident sustained a fall with possible head injury, facility staff assessed and monitored the resident's condition. The family was notified who declined to have the resident sent to the hospital for evaluation. Two days later, when a change in condition was observed, the resident was sent to the hospital. The resident was admitted and later discharged on hospice services. An equal opportunity employer.”
Action taken by facility: “None.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed September 1, 2022: no correction orders issued.
- February 7, 2023 · report HL215181361M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “An unlicensed facility staff member/alleged perpetrator (AP) verbally and physically abused the resident when the AP yelled at the resident, dragged the resident down the hallway, and forcefully pushed the resident on to a chair.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. There is not enough evidence available to support if abuse occurred. Staff who worked at the time of the incident, including the witness and the alleged perpetrator (AP), were not available for interview.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility immediately suspended the AP, reported the incident and began an internal investigation. Following the incident, all staff were retrained on caring for resident's with dementia.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed February 3, 2023: no correction orders issued.
Unsubstantiated investigations (3)
- January 30, 2025 · report HL215187962M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) financially exploited the resident when the AP accepted forty dollars from the resident to buy him alcohol, never purchased anything for the resident, and kept the money.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was not substantiated. The resident provided conflicting statements regarding the allegation in the law enforcement report and investigator interview. The law enforcement report indicated the initial account of theft by the resident indicated the AP took the money to buy him wine, however another resident at the facility reported witnessing the resident go to the store himself. The AP denied he accepted money from the resident.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility conducted an internal investigation and law enforcement was notified. The incident happened under a previous owner.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed January 2, 2025: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
- April 23, 2024 · report HL215189790C
Details
Survey completed April 9, 2024: no correction orders issued.
- April 23, 2024 · report HL215189964C
Details
Survey completed April 9, 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 60 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 HARMONY PLACE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 424846
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-04-28
- Licensed capacity
- 60
- Licensee
- HARMONY PLACE
- County
- Fillmore County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Darci Baumann-Fern
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 13.4 mi, nursing home 0.9 mi, pharmacy 21.4 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Regional Health Services Of Howard County, Cresco. 13.4 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Gundersen Harmony Care Center, Harmony. 0.9 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Good Samaritan Society - Home Care, Preston. 7.4 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Sterling Pharmacy. 21.4 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55939 as rural (rural area).
- Hospice
- 5 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55939.
- Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester. 39.7 miles away, straight line. 1 geriatric medicine doctor listed there.
Distances are straight lines from the community, not driving distance. Hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors come from CMS provider data (CMS, hospital list updated Jul 22, 2026). Star ratings are CMS’s own.
Emergency and natural hazard riskFEMA overall risk relatively 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 high, wildfire very low, tornado very high, heat wave relatively low, 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 January 2025. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
What we checked12 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | 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 | No plain statements of services found |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Harmony Place provide?
Harmony Place is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Harmony, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 60 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Harmony Place?
No. We publish state licensing details for Harmony Place 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 Harmony Place 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. Harmony Place does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Harmony Place?
Use Harmony Place's website, harmonyplaceliving.com, or visit at 455 Main Avenue North, Harmony, MN 55939.
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