Lilisity

Assisted Living

Lifecare Medical Center

201 10th Street Se, Roseau, MN 56751 · Map
Licensed for 45 residents · LIFECARE MEDICAL CENTER

State license active
Is this your community? Claim this listing

Lifecare Medical Center is a state-licensed assisted living community in Roseau, Minnesota. It is licensed for 45 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.

Assisted LivingCare offered
45 residentsLicensed capacity
State licensedAssisted living facility
$2,200 to $4,800/moTypical assisted living start in Minnesota, from 74 communities that publish prices

Prices

This community does not publish its prices.

Area costs

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.

Care and services

From the community’s website

What Lifecare Medical Center says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.

  • Offers hospice care on site or works with hospice providers. Medicare- and Medicaid-certified care offering short-term rehabilitation stays, long-term care, and hospice services under one roof. (page, checked Oct 12, 2026)

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.

State inspections

1Substantiated investigations

Last evaluation: Jul 15, 2026. See the record

License

Active, 45 residents

Assisted Living Facility 422577, current license dated Nov 1, 2025. Licensee LIFECARE MEDICAL CENTER.

State inspection record1 substantiated
Last evaluation
July 15, 2026
Evaluations on record
2
Investigations substantiated
1 kept 7 years
Inconclusive
0 kept 4 years
Unsubstantiated
0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (July 15, 2026, state report K8I511)

MDH: “On July 13, 2026, through July 15, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed July 15, 2026: 7 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 to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”

  • Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure services were provided according to accepted health care, medical, or nursing standards in regard to infection control during resident cares and medication administration for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F, ULP-C).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure services were provided according to accepted health care, medical, or nursing standards in regard to infection control during resident cares and medication administration for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F, ULP-C). [...]”

    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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”

  • Tag 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 the employee's current background study clearance was affiliated with the correct health care facility identification number (HFID) for three of ten employees (director of maintenance (DM)-D, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H, registered nurse (RN)-I).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the employee's current background study clearance was affiliated with the correct health care facility identification number (HFID) for three of ten employees (director of maintenance (DM)-D, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H, registered nurse (RN)-I). This had the potential to affect all residents living within the facility. [...]”

    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 1500: 144G.63 Subd. 5 Required annual training Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an employee received all the required content for annual training for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an employee received all the required content for annual training for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”

    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 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan 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 registered nurse (RN) failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication management plan for each resident to include all required content for one of three residents (R5). [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, a registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse, or qualified staff delegated the task by a registered nurse must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the [...]”

  • Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care medical or nursing standards for medication setup by unlicensed personnel (ULP) for one of six residents (R5). [...]”

    Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”

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

Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included

Fines assessed by MDH

  • Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00

Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.

Earlier evaluations (1)
  • March 27, 2024: report TZFP11 · 29 correction orders
    Details

    Survey completed June 18, 2024: 5 correction orders

    • Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program (re-issued) Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed by one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F while providing direct care to a resident (R4).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed by one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F while providing direct care to a resident (R4). [...]”

      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 1420: 144G.62 Subd. 2 Delegation of assisted living services (re-issued) Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide complete written instructions in the resident record for delegated tasks for one of two residents (R4) for catheter care (a tube inserted into the bladder, allowing urine to drain freely).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide complete written instructions in the resident record for delegated tasks for one of two residents (R4) for catheter care (a tube inserted into the bladder, allowing urine to drain freely). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(b) When the registered nurse or licensed health professional delegates tasks to unlicensed personnel, that person must ensure that prior to the delegation the unlicensed personnel is trained in the proper methods to perform the tasks or procedures for each [...]”

    • Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) 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 service plans were revised to include provided services for one of two residents (R7).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans were revised to include provided services for one of two residents (R7). [...]”

      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 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to (re-issued) Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of one resident (R7).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of one resident (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) 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 [...]”

      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 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen (re-issued) Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R7) who had treatments managed by the facility.

      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 one of two residents (R7) who had treatments managed by the facility. [...]”

      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 [...]”

    Survey completed March 27, 2024: 24 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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed by one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H while providing direct care to residents.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed by one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H while providing direct care to residents. [...]”

      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 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 ensure an individual abuse prevention plan was developed to include the required content for three of three residents (R2, R4, R5).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan was developed to include the required content for three of three residents (R2, R4, R5). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”

    • Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained required content for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP-D).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained required content for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP-D). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid employee, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”

    • 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 (EPP) posted in a

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) posted in a prominent area and developed with all the required content. 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 [...]”

    Show all 24
    • Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record 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 the resident record included the required content for one of three residents (R1). 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 [...]”

      Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”

    • Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Two (2) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated with the assisted living license for two of five employees, (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -C, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated with the assisted living license for two of five employees, (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -C, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”

      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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care to residents for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care to residents for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”

      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 facility failed to ensure competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care to residents for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care to residents for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”

      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 1420: 144G.62 Subd. 2 Delegation of assisted living services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) ensured training and competency demonstration was completed for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) performing delegated tasks, and additionally, the licensee failed to provide written instructions in the resident record for delegated tasks for one of one resident (R4) for catheter care (a tube inserted into the bladder, allowing urine to drain freely).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) ensured training and competency demonstration was completed for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) performing delegated tasks, and additionally, the licensee failed to provide written instructions in the resident record for delegated tasks for one of one resident (R4) for catheter care (a tube inserted into the bladder, allowing urine to drain freely). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(b) When the registered nurse or licensed health professional delegates tasks to unlicensed personnel, that person must ensure that prior to the delegation the unlicensed personnel is trained in the proper methods to perform the tasks or procedures for each [...]”

    • Tag 1500: 144G.63 Subd. 5 Required annual training Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employees

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees received all required content of annual training for each 12 months of employment for three of three employees, (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -C, unlicensed personnel, (ULP)-G, ULP-H). [...]”

      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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed ongoing resident reassessments that did not exceed 14 days for one of three resident (R2) and did not exceed 90 days for one of three residents (R7).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed ongoing resident reassessments that did not exceed 14 days for one of three resident (R2) and did not exceed 90 days for one of three residents (R7). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”

    • Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure service plans were revised to include provided services for two of two residents (R2, R7).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans were revised to include provided services for two of two residents (R2, R7). [...]”

      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 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 one of one resident (R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of one resident (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) 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 [...]”

      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 1700: 144G.71 Subd. 2 Provision of medication management services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7)
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to assess residents for ability to self-administer scheduled medications for one of one resident (R2) who self-administered some medications.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to assess residents for ability to self-administer scheduled medications for one of one resident (R2) who self-administered some medications. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) For each resident who requests medication management services, the facility shall, prior to providing medication management services, have a registered nurse, licensed health professional, or authorized prescriber under section 151.37 conduct an [...]”

    • Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide complete specific resident instructions relating to the administration of medications for one of three residents (R2) with injectable medications.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide complete specific resident instructions relating to the administration of medications for one of three residents (R2) with injectable medications. [...]”

      Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”

    • Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for two of three residents (R2, R4) who received medication management services.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for two of three residents (R2, R4) who received medication management services. [...]”

      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 1790: 144G.71 Subd. 10 Medication management for residents who will Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-G) was trained by registered nurse (RN) and had demonstrated competency to prepare and give medications for residents having unplanned time away.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-G) was trained by registered nurse (RN) and had demonstrated competency to prepare and give medications for residents having unplanned time away. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(2) for unplanned time away, when the pharmacy is not able to provide the medications, a licensed nurse or unlicensed personnel shall provide medications in amounts and dosages needed for the length of the anticipated absence, not to exceed seven calendar [...]”

    • Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found 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.

      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. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure medications were secure and permitted access to only authorized personnel for one of three residents (R2). [...]”

      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 ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration date for time sensitive medications for two of two medication carts (main floor/upstairs) and in one of one refrigerator.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration date for time sensitive medications for two of two medication carts (main floor/upstairs) and in one of one refrigerator. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure medication included all the required prescription information for one of one resident's insulin (R2). [...]”

      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 and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for three of four residents (R4, R2, R7) who had treatments managed by the facility.

      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 three of four residents (R4, R2, R7) who had treatments managed by the facility. [...]”

      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, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure prior to delegating nursing tasks, the registered nurse (RN) trained unlicensed personnel (ULP) and had ULP demonstrate the ability to follow the procedure to perform the tasks for one of one resident (R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure prior to delegating nursing tasks, the registered nurse (RN) trained unlicensed personnel (ULP) and had ULP demonstrate the ability to follow the procedure to perform the tasks for one of one resident (R2). [...]”

      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 1970: 144G.72 Subd. 6 Treatment and therapy orders Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for two of two residents (R4, R7) who received treatments managed by the provider.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for two of two residents (R4, R7) who received treatments managed by the provider. [...]”

      Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”

    • Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: IMMEDIATE
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards with an assistive device (consumer bed rail), for four of four residents (R2, R4, R7, R8).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards with an assistive device (consumer bed rail), for four of four residents (R2, R4, R7, R8). [...]”

      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.”

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

    Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.

    Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

  • September 24, 2024 · report HL304961661M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility and individual responsibility
    Details

    Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrators, unlicensed personnel at the facility, financially exploited a resident when they accepted $226,750 from the resident. The resident's power of attorney (POA) was removed without the POA's knowledge and AP1 was appointed POA and written into the resident's will as the sole benefactor. After the resident passed away, the resident's family had no claim to the resident's estate and AP1 took possession of the resident's remaining assets. AP2 received $24,500 from the resident while she was an employee of the facility.”

    “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated.”

    “The facility and AP1 were responsible for the maltreatment.”

    Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation substantiated (facility and individual responsibility).

    MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The facility and AP1 were responsible for the maltreatment. AP1 acquired funds and property from the resident while working for the facility, including over $175,000 from the resident and the resident's van. After the resident's death, AP1 sold the resident's van for at least $40,000. The facility was made aware of concerns related to AP1 serving as the resident's power of attorney in 2022. The facility investigated the issue and interviewed AP1 and the resident. The facility allowed AP1 to continue her employment since the resident had moved to another facility owned and operated by the licensee. Financial exploitation against AP2 was not substantiated. Although AP2 received at least $24,500 from the resident, AP2 received the money after her employment at the facility ended.”

    Action taken by facility: “Upon learning of allegations in 2022, the facility investigated the incident and reported it to MAARC. After the maltreatment investigation was initiated, the facility terminated AP1.”

    Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

    Survey completed June 20, 2024: 3 correction orders

    • Tag 590: 144G.42 Subd. 3 Facility restrictions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: SEVEN (7) DAYS
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to follow facility restrictions for one of one residents (R1).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to follow facility restrictions for one of one residents (R1). A facility staff person, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-A was named as the benefactor of the resident's Last Will and Testament, as well as the resident's health care power of attorney (POA). A facility board of directors member (BM)-D accepted a power of attorney for R1 and was named as the personal representative of the resident's Last Will and Testament. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) This subdivision does not apply to licensees that are Minnesota counties or other units of government. [...]”

    • Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) 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 provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when an unlicensed personnel (ULP)-A accepted money, a vehicle, and other personal items of value from 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 when an unlicensed personnel (ULP)-A accepted money, a vehicle, and other personal items of value from R1. The facility investigated allegations of an inappropriate relationship that violated professional boundaries and the investigation confirmed the allegations. [...]”

      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 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 the facility and an individual person 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.”

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 45 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 LIFECARE MEDICAL CENTER
License type
Assisted Living Facility
License number
422577
License status
Active
Current license dated
2025-11-01
Licensed capacity
45
Licensee
LIFECARE MEDICAL CENTER
Administrator/Authorized Agent
Allyson Eidsmoe

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.

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.

  1. The current license dates from 2025. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
  2. What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
  3. How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
  4. What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
  5. What fees are charged at move-in?
  6. How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
  7. How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
  8. Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
  9. For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
  10. Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
What we checked8 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.

SourceData as ofWhat we found
Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection recordsSep 28, 2026See above
U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour casesOct 15, 2026Nothing on record
OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016Oct 15, 2026Nothing on record
HUD Multifamily Properties - AssistedJul 6, 2026Nothing on record
State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory)Sep 20, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Hospice - General InformationAug 19, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Home Health Care AgenciesMay 27, 2026Nothing on record
The community’s own websiteSee above
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Lifecare Medical Center provide?

Lifecare Medical Center is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Roseau, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 45 residents.

Does Lilisity rate Lifecare Medical Center?

No. We publish state licensing details for Lifecare Medical Center 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 Lifecare Medical Center 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. Lifecare Medical Center does not publish its prices.

How do I contact Lifecare Medical Center?

Use Lifecare Medical Center's website, lifecaremedicalcenter.org/senior-services, or visit at 201 10th Street Se, Roseau, MN 56751.

Choosing assisted livingOur care guide: what to look for, what it costs, how families pay, and more questions to ask (PDF)

Report a wrong fact

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