Assisted Living and Memory Care
Ingleside
2811 Roland Avenue, Fairmont, MN 56031 · Map
Licensed for 62 residents · INGLESIDE
Ingleside is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Fairmont, Minnesota. It is licensed for 62 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, 62 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 422664, current license dated Nov 1, 2025. Licensee INGLESIDE.
Nearest emergency room
0.9 miles
Mayo Clinic Health System - Fairmont, rated 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingleside this community | 62 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Vista Prairie at Goldfinch Est | 1.3 mi | 140 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Woodland Manor | 2.2 mi | 30 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Sherburn Eda Operating Tempera | 13.4 mi | 65 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Spring Creek Independent and Assisted Living | 15.1 mi | 24 | Not published | Active | No record |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- April 23, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (April 23, 2025, state report KBCC11)
MDH: “On April 21, 2025, through April 23, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed April 23, 2025: 15 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer
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 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 information and 911 emergency phone 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 information and 911 emergency phone 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 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2-3) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the portable fire extinguishers. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”
- 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 the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- 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 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 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. [...]”
Show all 15
- 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 (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-E, and ULP-H.)
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-E, and ULP-H.) 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 [...]”
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 contained all the required training for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-E, and ULP-H).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations contained all the required training for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-E, and ULP-H). [...]”
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 1540: 144G.64 (a) TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP-E) 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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of three residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of three residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 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 one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-B) administered medications as prescribed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-B) administered medications as prescribed. 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: “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
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 five residents (R6) with insulin. [...]”
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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the prescription numbers as applicable, for one of one discharged resident (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the prescription numbers as applicable, 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 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for two of two residents (R2, R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for two of two residents (R2, R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 1950: 144G.72 Subd. 4 Administration of treatments and therapy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) specified, in writing, specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of two residents (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) specified, in writing, specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of two residents (R5). [...]”
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 1960: 144G.72 Subd. 5 Documentation of administration of treatments Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee lacked documentation of treatments for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee lacked documentation of treatments for one of two residents (R2). 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 or a limited number of [...]”
Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- October 13, 2022: report G9FB11 · 12 correction orders
Details
Survey completed October 13, 2022: 12 correction orders
- Tag 110: 144G.10 Subdivision 1a Assisted living director license required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure licensed assisted living director (LALD)-A was listed as the Director of Record for the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure licensed assisted living director (LALD)-A was listed as the Director of Record for the licensee. 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 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This had the potential to affect all 37 current residents of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to post in a conspicuous place, information about the facility's grievance procedure with the required content as well as the required information related to the contact information for the state and applicable regional Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care and 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 e-mail contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) 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 immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) suspected maltreatment for one of one resident (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) suspected maltreatment for one of one resident (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “144G.42 Subd. 6. Compliance with requirements for reporting maltreatment of vulnerable adults; abuse prevention plan. (a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- 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 and failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation.
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 and failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation. 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 12
- 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 required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
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 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to ensure one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C) completed training and competency evaluations prior to providing direct cares as required. [...]”
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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted direct supervision for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C performing delegated nursing or therapy tasks within 30 days of first providing those services. [...]”
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 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) service plans included all the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) service plans included all the required content. 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 pattern scope (when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more [...]”
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 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
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 two residents (R6) with insulin, and two of three residents (R7, R8) with eye drops. [...]”
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 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 provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representative at the time of move-in for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3).
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 provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representative at the time of move-in for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3). [...]”
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 3000: 626.557 Subd. 3 Timing of report Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Citation Text for Tag 0620, Regulation EF5D Buckholz, Wendy Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) suspected maltreatment for one of one resident (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A mandated reporter who has reason to believe that a vulnerable adult is being or has been maltreated, or who has knowledge that a vulnerable adult has sustained a physical injury which is not reasonably explained shall immediately report the information [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 110: 144G.10 Subdivision 1a Assisted living director license required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- October 18, 2024 · report HL302453002M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility abused the resident when staff restrained the resident with a gait belt in her wheelchair over a two-hour period.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. Facility staff unreasonably confined the resident when a transfer belt was used to secure the resident to a wheelchair for over two hours. The incident was not thoroughly investigated by management staff and no action was taken to prevent further occurrence.”
Action taken by facility: “The AP was no longer employed by the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “ If substantiated and facility responsibility, or facility and individual: The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed July 31, 2024: 10 correction orders
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to show they met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations understood applicable statutes and rules; nor developed and/or implemented current policies and procedures as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to show they met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations understood applicable statutes and rules; nor developed and/or implemented current policies and procedures as required. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The commissioner may refuse to grant a provisional license, refuse to grant a license as a result of a change in ownership, refuse to renew a license, suspend or revoke a license, or impose a conditional license if the owner, controlling individual, or [...]”
- Tag 430: 144G.40 Subd. 2 Uniform checklist disclosure of services Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide licensee's accurate Uniform Disclosure of Assisted Living Services and Amenities (UDALSA) to two of two residents (R1, R2) reviewed and affected all residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”
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 490: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (ii)-(vii) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a daily program of social and recreational activities based on individual and group interests, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs, to create opportunities for active participation in the community.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a daily program of social and recreational activities based on individual and group interests, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs, to create opportunities for active participation in the community. This had the potential to affect all residents who received services. [...]”
Rule cited: “(iv) upon the request of the resident, provide direct or reasonable assistance with arranging for transportation to medical and social services appointments, shopping, and other recreation, and provide the name of or other identifying information about the [...]”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control related to gloving and hand hygiene for three of three staff, unlicensed personnel (ULP-D), ULP-E, and ULP-I. The licensee also did not implement COVID-19 precautions while in a current outbreak.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control related to gloving and hand hygiene for three of three staff, unlicensed personnel (ULP-D), ULP-E, and ULP-I. The licensee also did not implement COVID-19 precautions while in a current outbreak. This had potential to affect all of the residents, staff, 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 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to implement their written procedure and comply with statute requirements to ensure cases of suspected maltreatment were reported for one of one resident (R1). Facility staff failed to adhere to the steps outlined in the procedure of immediate action required following a report of suspected maltreatment. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
Show all 10
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to revise and implement services to prevent multiple falls for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, observation, and document review, the licensee failed to revise and implement services to prevent multiple falls for one of one resident (R2). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan was signed by R2's designated representative. [...]”
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 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 evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan for two of two residents (R1, R2) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan for two of two residents (R1, R2) reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services based on the resident's needs and accepted health care standards to ensure dignified and appropriate safety interventions were implemented for one of one resident's (R2) when staff locked R2's wheel chair brakes and used a gait belt to restrain R2 to the wheelchair following a fall. [...]”
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 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards were provided by people who were properly trained and competent for one of one resident (R1) when a staff member slapped R1.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards were provided by people who were properly trained and competent for one of one resident (R1) when a staff member slapped 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 [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred for R1, and the facility and an individual were 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 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
- October 18, 2024 · report HL302453100M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility and individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), an unlicensed personnel (ULP), abused the resident when the AP slapped the resident. The facility neglected the resident when they failed to investigate reports of abuse and did not suspend the AP.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“In addition, the Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into 2 allegations and found: abuse substantiated; neglect substantiated (facility and individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. Video footage identified that the AP slapped the resident. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. Facility policies and procedures were not followed by facility management staff after suspected abuse was reported and no immediate action was taken to protect resident safety.”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed July 31, 2024: 10 correction orders
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to show they met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations understood applicable statutes and rules; nor developed and/or implemented current policies and procedures as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to show they met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations understood applicable statutes and rules; nor developed and/or implemented current policies and procedures as required. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The commissioner may refuse to grant a provisional license, refuse to grant a license as a result of a change in ownership, refuse to renew a license, suspend or revoke a license, or impose a conditional license if the owner, controlling individual, or [...]”
- Tag 430: 144G.40 Subd. 2 Uniform checklist disclosure of services Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide licensee's accurate Uniform Disclosure of Assisted Living Services and Amenities (UDALSA) to two of two residents (R1, R2) reviewed and affected all residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”
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 490: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (ii)-(vii) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a daily program of social and recreational activities based on individual and group interests, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs, to create opportunities for active participation in the community.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a daily program of social and recreational activities based on individual and group interests, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs, to create opportunities for active participation in the community. This had the potential to affect all residents who received services. [...]”
Rule cited: “(iv) upon the request of the resident, provide direct or reasonable assistance with arranging for transportation to medical and social services appointments, shopping, and other recreation, and provide the name of or other identifying information about the [...]”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control related to gloving and hand hygiene for three of three staff, unlicensed personnel (ULP-D), ULP-E, and ULP-I. The licensee also did not implement COVID-19 precautions while in a current outbreak.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control related to gloving and hand hygiene for three of three staff, unlicensed personnel (ULP-D), ULP-E, and ULP-I. The licensee also did not implement COVID-19 precautions while in a current outbreak. This had potential to affect all of the residents, staff, 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 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to implement their written procedure and comply with statute requirements to ensure cases of suspected maltreatment were reported for one of one resident (R1). Facility staff failed to adhere to the steps outlined in the procedure of immediate action required following a report of suspected maltreatment. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
Show all 10
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to revise and implement services to prevent multiple falls for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, observation, and document review, the licensee failed to revise and implement services to prevent multiple falls for one of one resident (R2). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan was signed by R2's designated representative. [...]”
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 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 evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan for two of two residents (R1, R2) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan for two of two residents (R1, R2) reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services based on the resident's needs and accepted health care standards to ensure dignified and appropriate safety interventions were implemented for one of one resident's (R2) when staff locked R2's wheel chair brakes and used a gait belt to restrain R2 to the wheelchair following a fall. [...]”
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 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards were provided by people who were properly trained and competent for one of one resident (R1) when a staff member slapped R1.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards were provided by people who were properly trained and competent for one of one resident (R1) when a staff member slapped 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 [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred for R1, and the facility and an individual were 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 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
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 62 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 INGLESIDE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 422664
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-11-01
- Licensed capacity
- 62
- Licensee
- INGLESIDE
- County
- Martin County
- Administrator, CEO
- Eric Worke
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, CEO name from public records we reviewed, as of Oct 12, 2026.
Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota, and other programs
How Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota
- Elderly Waiver (EW), customized living services. Minnesota's Elderly Waiver, part of Medical Assistance (Minnesota Medicaid), can pay for "customized living" services, and a provider of those services must hold an assisted living license (or meet certain exceptions). You must qualify for Medical Assistance and need a nursing-home level of care. (state page)
Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.
Staff pay and workplace safety1 OSHA inspection, 2 violations cited
Federal records about how the employer here treats its staff.
OSHA workplace safety inspections
OSHA inspects workplaces for staff safety, such as lifting, needles, chemicals and workplace violence. It does not inspect resident care.
- Nov 22, 2019: complaint inspection, partial (health). Case closed Jan 27, 2020. 2 violations cited (2 serious). Penalties: $600 proposed, $420 now. OSHA record. OSHA recorded the employer as 100769 - Come Home INC DBA Ingleside.
Details
- Serious: Bloodborne pathogens (needles, blood and body fluids) (1910.1030(d)(4)(iii)(a)(1)). Penalty $300 proposed, $210 now. To be fixed by Jan 30, 2020.
- Serious: Bloodborne pathogens (needles, blood and body fluids) (1910.1030(d)(4)(iii)(a)(1)). Penalty $300 proposed, $210 now. To be fixed by Jan 30, 2020.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, as of Oct 15, 2026, inspections since 2016. Penalties can change while a case is open or contested.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 0.9 mi, nursing home 2.3 mi, pharmacy 2.3 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Mayo Clinic Health System - Fairmont, Fairmont. 0.9 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars. Location approximate.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Lakeview Methodist Health Care Center, Fairmont. 2.3 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- United Hospital District Inc, Blue Earth. 18.0 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Hy-Vee Pharmacy. 2.3 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56031 as small town (small town core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Mayo Dialysis - Fairmont, Fairmont, 1.8 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 1 of 5 stars)
- Hospice
- 9 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56031.
United Hospital District Inc, office in Blue Earth, 18.0 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Mayo Clinic Health System-Southeast Minnesota Region, Austin. 74.2 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
- FEMA has a flood map for this community (effective October 1, 2018), but it is not in FEMA's digital flood map data, so the zone at this address could not be read. FEMA's Map Service Center has the map. (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 October 2024. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- The current license dates from 2025. 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 | See above |
| 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 | Could not read the site |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Ingleside provide?
Ingleside is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Fairmont, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 62 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Ingleside?
No. We publish state licensing details for Ingleside 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 Ingleside 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. Ingleside does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Ingleside?
Use Ingleside's website, colonycourtmn.com, or visit at 2811 Roland Avenue, Fairmont, MN 56031.
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