Hayden Grove Senior Living

Last evaluation

August 13, 2025

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

2 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

0 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (August 13, 2025, state report W00111)

MDH: “On August 11, 2025, through August 13, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed August 13, 2025: 1 correction order

• Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: IMMEDIATE · fine: $1,000.00 assessed
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services with continuity and as agreed to in the service plan by not following the care plan and transfer method for one of five residents (R1).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services with continuity and as agreed to in the service plan by not following the care plan and transfer method for one of five residents (R1). [...]”

  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 [...]”

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

Fines assessed by MDH

• Tag 2320 (144g.91 Subd.4 (b) - Appropriate CareAnd Services): $1,000.00

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

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• April 2, 2024 · report HL369135022C
  Details

  Survey completed March 12, 2024: 1 correction order

  • Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure they had sufficient staff to meet the scheduled needs of all residents who resided in the licensee's facility.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure they had sufficient staff to meet the scheduled needs of all residents who resided in the licensee's facility. During the overnight (NOC) shift from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m., the facility was routinely short-staffed and staffed unlicensed personnel (ULP) who were assigned light duty and unable to assist with transfers. [...]”

    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 [...]”

• July 21, 2023 · report HL369133683M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The Alleged Perpetrators (APs), facility staff, neglected Resident 1 and Resident 2 when they failed to answer call lights in a timely manner and refused to toilet Resident 1 and Resident 2. It is alleged the APs neglected Resident 1 when they refused to wear personal protective equipment (masks and gloves) when caring for the resident and moved Resident 1's call light and phone, preventing the resident access to call for staff assistance. It is also alleged the APs abused Resident 1 when they caused bruises during transfers.”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated for Resident 1 and Resident 2.”

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

  “The facility was responsible for the maltreatment of Resident 1.”

  “The facility was responsible for the maltreatment of Resident 2.”

  Summary: MDH looked into 2 allegations and found: neglect substantiated; abuse inconclusive (facility responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “An equal opportunity employer. The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated for Resident 1 and Resident 2. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment of Resident 1. The facility failed to ensure staff responded to the residents call light and request with toileting assistance. Resident 1 acquired bladder infections related to the lack of staff assistance. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment of Resident 2. The facility failed to ensure staff responded to the residents call light and assist the resident with cares. Resident 2 did not receive assistance with toileting and urinated in cups related to lack of staff assistance. The facility was aware the staff did not answer call lights in a timely manner and made no system changes to ensure Resident 1 and Resident 2 were receiving the necessary care and services. [...]”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility suspended several staff and ended the employment of AP1. The facility indicated it started a quality improvement project to decrease wait times and improved customer service.”

  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 July 10, 2023: 2 correction orders

  • Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) Days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for 2 of 2 residents (R1 and R2) reviewed for maltreatment when staff failed to answer call lights in a timely manner.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for 2 of 2 residents (R1 and R2) reviewed for maltreatment when staff failed to answer call lights in a timely manner. Harm occurred when R1 was diagnosed with urinary tract infections after pushing her call light up to 62 times and waiting up to 912 minutes for staff assistance. [...]”

    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 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 190 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.