Assisted Living
Lakewood Pines
1702 Airport Road Ne, Staples, MN 56479 · Map
Licensed for 50 residents · LAKEWOOD PINES
Lakewood Pines is a state-licensed assisted living community in Staples, Minnesota. It is licensed for 50 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
Care and services
From the community’s website
What Lakewood Pines says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
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, 50 residents
Assisted Living Facility 425600, current license dated Jun 1, 2026. Licensee LAKEWOOD PINES.
Nearest emergency room
3.1 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 Pines this community | 50 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Lakewood Manor | 1.7 mi | 30 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated |
| A Daughter's Love | 2.5 mi | 18 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| Harmony House of Motley | 8.1 mi | 22 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Riverside Assisted Living | 15.5 mi | 24 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- April 16, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (April 16, 2026, state report 3LPM11)
MDH: “On April 13, 2026, through April 16, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed April 16, 2026: 8 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 750: 144G.43 Subd. 5 Record retention Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain resident records for at least five years for two of two residents (R5, R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to maintain resident records for at least five years for two of two residents (R5, R6). 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 widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “Following the resident's discharge or termination of services, an assisted living facility must retain a resident's record for at least five years or as otherwise required by state or federal regulations. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated to the current health facility identification (HFID) number for two of two employees on the facility provided employee roster unlicensed personnel (ULP) D and ULP-E.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated to the current health facility identification (HFID) number for two of two employees on the facility provided employee roster unlicensed personnel (ULP) D and ULP-E. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
- Tag 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 required training was completed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure required training was completed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one [...]”
Rule cited: “(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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure required training was completed for two of two employees unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure required training was completed for two of two employees unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-G). 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 [...]”
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 [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 1450: 144G.62 Subd. 5 Documentation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was maintained for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP-E, ULP-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was maintained for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP-E, ULP-G). [...]”
Rule cited: “A facility must retain documentation of supervision activities in the personnel records.”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed an ongoing assessment and monitoring on or before day 90 for three of three residents (R1, R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored according to manufacturer's instructions for the medication refrigerator.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored according to manufacturer's instructions for the medication refrigerator. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. [...]”
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.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included
Earlier evaluations (1)
- August 23, 2023: report C2MR11 · 20 correction orders
Details
Survey completed October 24, 2023: 6 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness (re-issued) Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to prominently post an emergency disaster plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to prominently post an emergency disaster plan. This had the potential to affect all residents, 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 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter E
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to (re-issued) Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included all required content for one of two residents (R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included all required content for one of two residents (R7). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or [...]”
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 1710: 144G.71 Subd. 3 Individualized medication monitoring and reas (re-issued) Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a reassessment when medication related symptoms presented, and there was a change in the resident's medications for one of one resident (R7).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a reassessment when medication related symptoms presented, and there was a change in the resident's medications for one of one resident (R7). [...]”
Rule cited: “The assisted living facility must monitor and reassess the resident's medication management services as needed under subdivision 2 when the resident presents with symptoms or other issues that may be medication-related and, at a minimum, annually.”
Survey completed August 23, 2023: 14 correction orders
- 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 practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 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 have a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content and the licensee failed to prominently post an emergency disaster plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content and the licensee failed to prominently post an emergency disaster plan. This had the potential to affect all residents, 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 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide interconnected smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide interconnected smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
- 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 fire safety and evacuation plans with required elements; failed to provide readily available fire safety and evacuation plans; failed to provide the required employee training on fire safety and evacuation; and failed to provide training to residents capable of assisting in their own evacuation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, record review, and interview, the licensee failed to develop fire safety and evacuation plans with required elements; failed to provide readily available fire safety and evacuation plans; failed to provide the required employee training on fire safety and evacuation; and failed to provide training to residents capable of assisting in their own 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. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: IMMEDIATE · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) and was affiliated with the assisted living license for two of six employees (ULP-E and maintenance (M)-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) and was affiliated with the assisted living license for two of six employees (ULP-E and maintenance (M)-F). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
Show all 14
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct a comprehensive reassessment by a registered nurse (RN) for one of three residents (R4) with a change of condition, including addition of interventions as needed with change of conditions.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to conduct a comprehensive reassessment by a registered nurse (RN) for one of three residents (R4) with a change of condition, including addition of interventions as needed with change of conditions. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) 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 the service plan included all required content for one of three residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included all required content for one of three 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 [...]”
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 1710: 144G.71 Subd. 3 Individualized medication monitoring and reas 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) completed a reassessment when medication related symptoms presented, and there was a change in the resident's medications for one of three residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a reassessment when medication related symptoms presented, and there was a change in the resident's medications for one of three residents (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “The assisted living facility must monitor and reassess the resident's medication management services as needed under subdivision 2 when the resident presents with symptoms or other issues that may be medication-related and, at a minimum, annually.”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one medication refrigerator maintained an acceptable temperature to ensure the medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommendations. [...]”
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 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to monitor for expired medications being managed and stored by the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to monitor for expired medications being managed and stored by the licensee. 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 widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
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 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individual treatment management plan to include all required content for two of three residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individual treatment management plan to include all required content for two of three residents (R1, R2). [...]”
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, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse documented resident-specific instructions for treatments for two of three residents (R1, R2) whose oxygen treatment was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse documented resident-specific instructions for treatments for two of three residents (R1, R2) whose oxygen treatment was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP). [...]”
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, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee lacked proper documentation of oxygen treatment effectiveness or treatment completion for two of three residents (R1, R2) whose oxygen treatment was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee lacked proper documentation of oxygen treatment effectiveness or treatment completion for two of three residents (R1, R2) whose oxygen treatment was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP). [...]”
Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”
- Tag 2340: 144G.91 Subd. 6 Participation in care and service planning 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 allow the resident to actively participate in the planning, modification, and evaluation of their care and denied the resident the right to be told in advance of, and take part in decisions regarding recommended changes for one of three residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to actively participate in the planning, modification, and evaluation of their care and services. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- August 16, 2024 · report HL308383644M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when the AP failed to inform the facility nurse of the resident's ankle wound. The resident had a stage 3 pressure injury requiring antibiotic treatment.”
“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 AP was not employed by the facility at the time the wound was discovered. The resident had a band aid on the resident's left ankle for at least two weeks upwards to a month without facility staff reporting the resident's wound to a nurse until the band aid peeled off. The resident was diagnosed with an ankle pressure injury and required antibiotic treatment and wound care.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility sent the resident in to be evaluated and educated staff on expectations of reporting changes with residents' skin and expectations with bandage application. The AP is no longer employed by the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed July 16, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was 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 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- April 3, 2026 · report HL308381281M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the alleged perpetrator (AP), an unlicensed personnel (ULP), failed to administer as needed pain medication as prescribed. The ULP failed to notify the registered nurse (RN) and failed to follow up on the resident's complaints of pain.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. Although the resident did not get as needed pain medication when she requested it, the error was an isolated incident, and no harm occurred to the resident. A nurse followed up with the resident the next morning to assess her pain.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility identified the error and investigated the incident. The incident was reported to MAARC. The AP was retrained.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed March 20, 2026: no correction orders issued.
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
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 50 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 PINES
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 425600
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-06-01
- Licensed capacity
- 50
- Licensee
- LAKEWOOD PINES
- County
- Wadena 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 3.1 mi, nursing home 0.4 mi, pharmacy 27.5 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Lakewood Health System, Staples. 3.1 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Lakewood Health System, Staples. 0.4 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Lakewood Health System Home Care & Hospice, Staples. 0.4 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Lakes Area Pharmacies. 27.5 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, 0.4 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, 3.8 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Princeton. 81.4 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 February 4, 2011), 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)
- 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 moderate. By hazard: inland flooding relatively high, 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 | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Lakewood Pines provide?
Lakewood Pines is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Staples, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 50 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Lakewood Pines?
No. We publish state licensing details for Lakewood Pines 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 Pines 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 Pines does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Lakewood Pines?
Use Lakewood Pines's website, seniorliving.lakewoodhealthsystem.com/lakewood-pines, or visit at 1702 Airport Road 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