Assisted Living
Lakewood Manor
222 5th Street Ne, Staples, MN 56479 · Map
Licensed for 30 residents · LAKEWOOD MANOR
Lakewood Manor is a state-licensed assisted living community in Staples, Minnesota. It is licensed for 30 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, 30 residents
Assisted Living Facility 425599, current license dated Jun 1, 2026. Licensee LAKEWOOD MANOR.
Nearest emergency room
2.2 miles
Lakewood Health System.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lakewood Manor this community | 30 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated | |
| Lakewood Pines | 1.7 mi | 50 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| A Daughter's Love | 2.1 mi | 18 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| Harmony House of Motley | 7.2 mi | 22 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Riverside Assisted Living | 15.0 mi | 24 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record3 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- July 2, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 1
- Investigations substantiated
- 3 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (July 2, 2024, state report L76X11)
MDH: “On July 1, 2024, through, July 2, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed July 2, 2024: 5 correction orders
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to address the resident's susceptibility to abuse and the risk of abuse to others for all assisted living residents not receiving services.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to address the resident's susceptibility to abuse and the risk of abuse to others for all assisted living residents not receiving services. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 1500: 144G.63 Subd. 5 Required annual training Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure annual training included all required topics for each 12 months of employment for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, ULP-F) reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All staff that perform direct services must complete at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment. [...]”
- Tag 1530: 144G.64 TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B, ULP-F) 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)-B, ULP-F) completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must meet the following training requirements: (1) supervisors of direct-care staff must have at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 120 working hours of the employment start [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for two of two residents (R2, R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for two of two residents (R2, R3). 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 of [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications were dated when opened for one of three residents (R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications were dated when opened for one of three 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 [...]”
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 [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- February 7, 2024 · report HL202019886M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), a facility staff member, financially exploited the resident over a period of eight months, when the AP collected the resident's rent payment in cash each month but did not deposit the money or apply the money to the resident's account.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated.”
“The alleged perpetrator (AP)/facility staff member was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The alleged perpetrator (AP)/facility staff member was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP was responsible for facility billing procedures. The resident made a total of $6,400 in cash payments directly to the AP for rent but the payments were not documented as received and were not applied toward the resident's account.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility immediately contacted law enforcement and made a MAARC report upon discovery of the issue. The facility audited all resident financial records to identify any additional discrepancies. The AP was terminated for unrelated reasons when the issue was identified and the resident was not required to pay back the $6,400.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed December 14, 2023: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one residents 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
- October 24, 2023 · report HL202016685M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident after staff failed to report, monitor, and assess a change in condition. The resident was noted to have not felt well for several days and had purple extremities. The resident was admitted to the hospital.”
“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 resident had two unwitnessed falls and two days later began to complain of weakness and was unable to bear weight on her legs. The resident complained of worsening pain and numbness/loss of sensation in her lower limbs for 17 days before she was sent to the emergency room. The RN failed to reassess the resident after she went from being independent with transfers to requiring the use of a mechanical lift. The RN failed to update the resident's provider. The resident was admitted to the hospital and later admitted to a nursing home. An equal opportunity employer.”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
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 September 28, 2023: 13 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 with records reviewed.
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 with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the uniform checklist disclosure of services (UDALSA) accurately reflected services provided by the licensee. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
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 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed, implemented, and evaluated for appropriateness of staffing levels as required, potentially affecting all of the current residents, staff and visitors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed, implemented, and evaluated for appropriateness of staffing levels as required, potentially affecting all of the current residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · 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 two of two
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 two of two residents (R1, R2) reviewed for an elopement and a change in condition. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was updated to include specific measures to minimize the risk of vulnerabilities for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for an elopement and behaviors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was updated to include specific measures to minimize the risk of vulnerabilities for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for an elopement and behaviors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
Show all 13
- 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 ensure the assisted living director and clinical nurse supervisor reviewed the missing resident plan at least quarterly and document any changes to the plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living director and clinical nurse supervisor reviewed the missing resident plan at least quarterly and document any changes to the plan. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving services under the assisted living license, staff and visitors. [...]”
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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
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 or one resident (R1).
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 or one resident (R1). [...]”
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 1070: 144G.52 Subd. 10 Right to return Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to allow the return of one of one residents (R1) after they were sent to the emergency room, although the licensee had not issued a notice of termination of services or housing.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to allow the return of one of one residents (R1) after they were sent to the emergency room, although the licensee had not issued a notice of termination of services or housing. The licensee failed to offer any option for R1 to return as a housing-only resident with the necessary services provided by another agency. [...]”
Rule cited: “If a resident is absent from a facility for any reason, including an emergency relocation, the facility shall not refuse to allow a resident to return if a termination of housing has not been effectuated.”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) reassessed one of one resident with change of condition (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) reassessed one of one resident with change of condition (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure safe storage of medications for one of one resident (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to ensure safe storage of medications for one of one resident (R1) reviewed. This resulted in an immediate order on September 22, 2023. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- Tag 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 based on the resident's needs, an up-to-date service plan, and according to accepted health care standards for one of one resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to ensure appropriate care and services were provided based on the resident's needs, an up-to-date service plan, and according to accepted health care standards for one of one resident (R1). This resulted in an immediate order on September 22, 2023. [...]”
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 2350: 144G.91 Subd. 7 Courteous treatment Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) was treated in a courteous, respectful, and dignified manner.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) was treated in a courteous, respectful, and dignified manner. This resulted in an immediate order on September 22, 2023. [...]”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect, and to have the resident's property treated with respect”
- 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, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
- October 24, 2023 · report HL202018565M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff failed to assess and identify new vulnerabilities related to the resident's behaviors of elopements and refusals of care. No new interventions were implemented, and existing interventions were not evaluated.”
“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 resident eloped from the facility and the registered nurse (RN) failed to reassess the resident. The resident had a history of refusing cares and refusing to allow staff to change urine-soaked incontinence products. The RN failed to assess the resident's behaviors and failed to develop and implement person-centered interventions. The resident was frequently left in urine-soaked incontinence products and developed a urinary tract infection. An equal opportunity employer.”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
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 September 28, 2023: 13 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 with records reviewed.
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 with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the uniform checklist disclosure of services (UDALSA) accurately reflected services provided by the licensee. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
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 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed, implemented, and evaluated for appropriateness of staffing levels as required, potentially affecting all of the current residents, staff and visitors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed, implemented, and evaluated for appropriateness of staffing levels as required, potentially affecting all of the current residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · 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 two of two
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 two of two residents (R1, R2) reviewed for an elopement and a change in condition. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was updated to include specific measures to minimize the risk of vulnerabilities for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for an elopement and behaviors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was updated to include specific measures to minimize the risk of vulnerabilities for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for an elopement and behaviors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
Show all 13
- 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 ensure the assisted living director and clinical nurse supervisor reviewed the missing resident plan at least quarterly and document any changes to the plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living director and clinical nurse supervisor reviewed the missing resident plan at least quarterly and document any changes to the plan. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving services under the assisted living license, staff and visitors. [...]”
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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
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 or one resident (R1).
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 or one resident (R1). [...]”
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 1070: 144G.52 Subd. 10 Right to return Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to allow the return of one of one residents (R1) after they were sent to the emergency room, although the licensee had not issued a notice of termination of services or housing.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to allow the return of one of one residents (R1) after they were sent to the emergency room, although the licensee had not issued a notice of termination of services or housing. The licensee failed to offer any option for R1 to return as a housing-only resident with the necessary services provided by another agency. [...]”
Rule cited: “If a resident is absent from a facility for any reason, including an emergency relocation, the facility shall not refuse to allow a resident to return if a termination of housing has not been effectuated.”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) reassessed one of one resident with change of condition (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) reassessed one of one resident with change of condition (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure safe storage of medications for one of one resident (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to ensure safe storage of medications for one of one resident (R1) reviewed. This resulted in an immediate order on September 22, 2023. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- Tag 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 based on the resident's needs, an up-to-date service plan, and according to accepted health care standards for one of one resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to ensure appropriate care and services were provided based on the resident's needs, an up-to-date service plan, and according to accepted health care standards for one of one resident (R1). This resulted in an immediate order on September 22, 2023. [...]”
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 2350: 144G.91 Subd. 7 Courteous treatment Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) was treated in a courteous, respectful, and dignified manner.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) was treated in a courteous, respectful, and dignified manner. This resulted in an immediate order on September 22, 2023. [...]”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect, and to have the resident's property treated with respect”
- 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, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 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 30 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 LAKEWOOD MANOR
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 425599
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-06-01
- Licensed capacity
- 30
- Licensee
- LAKEWOOD MANOR
- County
- Todd County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Kathy Dobson
Source: Minnesota state licensing records (agency listing), retrieved 2026-09-09. Licensing status is a matter of public record; it is not a quality rating.
Administrator/Authorized Agent name from the Minnesota licensing record, as of Sep 9, 2026.
Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota, and other programs
How Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota
- Elderly Waiver (EW), customized living services. Minnesota's Elderly Waiver, part of Medical Assistance (Minnesota Medicaid), can pay for "customized living" services, and a provider of those services must hold an assisted living license (or meet certain exceptions). You must qualify for Medical Assistance and need a nursing-home level of care. (state page)
Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 2.2 mi, nursing home 1.4 mi, pharmacy 27.3 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Lakewood Health System, Staples. 2.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Lakewood Health System, Staples. 1.4 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Lakewood Health System Home Care & Hospice, Staples. 1.4 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Coborn's. 27.3 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56479 as rural (rural area).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Kidney Care Wadena County, Staples, 1.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
- Hospice
- 5 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56479.
Lakewood Health System Hospice, office in Staples, 5.4 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Princeton. 80.1 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 low; 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)
- Wildfire risk to homes
- In Staples, MN, risk to homes is greater than 91% of communities in Minnesota and 66% of communities nationwide. USDA rates the whole town or city, not this address. (USDA Forest Service, Wildfire Risk to Communities, April 2026)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively moderate, wildfire relatively moderate, tornado relatively moderate, 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 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 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?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
- Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
- For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
- Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
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 | See above |
| 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 Lakewood Manor provide?
Lakewood Manor is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Staples, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 30 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Lakewood Manor?
No. We publish state licensing details for Lakewood Manor 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 Lakewood Manor 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. Lakewood Manor does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Lakewood Manor?
Use Lakewood Manor's website, lakewoodhealthsystem.com, or visit at 222 5th Street Ne, Staples, MN 56479.
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