Assisted Living
Living Hope Homes Oak Grove
1805 60th Street East, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 · Map
Licensed for 6 residents · LIVING HOPE HOMES OAK GROVE
Living Hope Homes Oak Grove is a state-licensed assisted living community in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. It is licensed for 6 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, 6 residents
Assisted Living Facility 423573, current license dated Jan 8, 2026. Licensee LIVING HOPE HOMES OAK GROVE.
Nearest emergency room
5.9 miles
Allina United Hospital, rated 3 of 5 stars by CMS.
Side by side with nearby communities
The 4 nearest communities that offer assisted living, by straight-line distance. Prices are starting prices each community publishes; we never show estimates.
| Community | Distance | Licensed capacity | Published starting price | License | Inspection citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Living Hope Homes Oak Grove this community | 6 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Living Hope Homes Audrey's Pla | 0.4 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| The Bardo | 0.5 mi | 3 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Golden Bay Homes | 0.9 mi | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| We Care Assisted Living | 1.2 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- March 19, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (March 19, 2026, state report 2C7Q11)
MDH: “On March 17, 2026, through March 19, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed March 19, 2026: 10 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 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 the staffing plan was reviewed twice per year.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the staffing plan was reviewed twice per year. This had the potential to affect all 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 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 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 complete a hazard/risk vulnerability assessment and failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to complete a hazard/risk vulnerability assessment and failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”
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 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 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: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- 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 ensure medications were administered according to manufacturer's instructions for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered according to manufacturer's instructions for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
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 [...]”
Show all 10
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medication administration was documented accurately in the electronic medication administration record (EMAR) for one of two residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medication administration was documented accurately in the electronic medication administration record (EMAR) for one of two residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were not expired for the licensee's house medication supply, medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label and included the date opened of a time-sensitive drug for one of one resident (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were not expired for the licensee's house medication supply, medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label and included the date opened of a time-sensitive drug for one of one resident (R3). [...]”
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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) 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 services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for storage of oxygen for one of one resident (R2) with oxygen tanks.
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 storage of oxygen for one of one resident (R2) with oxygen tanks. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 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, licensee failed to ensure medications were administered according to policy and accepted standards of practice for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C with documenting medication administration. [...]”
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 3090: 144.6502, Subd. 8 Notice to Visitors Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity, potentially affecting resident, staff, and any visitors of the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity, potentially affecting resident, staff, and any visitors of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility must post a sign at each facility entrance accessible to visitors that states: "Electronic monitoring devices, including security cameras and audio devices, may be present to record persons and activities. [...]”
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)
- October 16, 2024: report YHHR11 · 11 correction orders
Details
Survey completed October 16, 2024: 11 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post a staffing plan with all the required content as indicated in Minnesota Administrative Rule 4659.0180.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to post a staffing plan with all the required content as indicated in Minnesota Administrative Rule 4659.0180. This had the potential to affect the residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”
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 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements 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) 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 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post in a conspicuous place, the email contact information for the individuals responsible for handling resident grievances.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post in a conspicuous place, the email contact information for the individuals responsible for handling resident grievances. This had the potential to affect the licensee's current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
- Tag 640: 144G.42 Subd. 7 Posting information for reporting suspected c Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided by the facility as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided by the facility as required. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility shall support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment by: (1) posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided [...]”
- Tag 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 practice and document testing of its emergency preparedness (EP) plan at least twice annually as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to practice and document testing of its emergency preparedness (EP) plan at least twice annually as required. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”
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 11
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide the required training and drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide the required training and drills. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1500: 144G.63 Subd. 5 Required annual training Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure annual training included all required topics for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure annual training included all required topics for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C). [...]”
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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were documented after administration for one of three residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were documented after administration for one of three residents (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, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of a medication including the medication's name, strength, prescription
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of a medication including the medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, date of disposition, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for one of one discharged resident (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for one of one resident (R1) related to oxygen storage.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for one of one resident (R1) related to oxygen storage. [...]”
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; MDH granted the assisted living license; no immediate fines.
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- December 10, 2025 · report HL397185902M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident was sent to the hospital for a change in condition related to a fever and was found to have a stage three pressure ulcer.”
“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. When the facility identified a skin concern on the resident's coccyx no new interventions were put into place and the provider was not updated. Additionally, facility staff did not provide necessary care to promote healing and/or prevent worsening of the resident's pressure ulcer and reduce the risk of further skin breakdown.”
Action taken by facility: “On going education was provided to facility staff. The facility contacted the resident's primary care provider to re-assess the need for updated care orders.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed November 13, 2025: 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(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) 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
- April 7, 2025 · report HL397187082M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when facility staff failed to follow the resident's plan of care and provide necessary care and services to prevent wounds to the resident's feet.”
“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 facility failed to remove the resident's socks for about two weeks and check his skin. The resident developed an infection and wounds to his left foot.”
Action taken by facility: “The resident was sent to the hospital after identifying the wounds. Following the resident's return from the hospital, wound care was completed, education to staff was completed, added to the resident's care plan that dressing included changing socks, and weekly skin checks were completed. The facility also notified the resident's physician of the resident's wounds.”
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 March 11, 2025: 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
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”
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 6 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 LIVING HOPE HOMES OAK GROVE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 423573
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-01-08
- Licensed capacity
- 6
- Licensee
- LIVING HOPE HOMES OAK GROVE
- County
- Dakota County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Emily Greseth
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 5.9 mi, nursing home 0.4 mi, pharmacy 1.3 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Allina United Hospital, Saint Paul. 5.9 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Woodlyn Heights Healthcare Center, Inver Grove Heights. 0.4 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Spectrum Community Health Inc, Inver Grove Heights. 2.1 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.3 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55077 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fmc - West St Paul Dialysis, West St Paul, 2.6 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita West St Paul Dialysis Unit, West St Paul, 2.7 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Highland Park Dialysis, Saint Paul, 5.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 24 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55077.
Hospice Of The Midwest, office in Woodbury, 6.4 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Healthpartners Hospice And Palliatice Care, office in Bloomington, 7.6 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
St Croix Hospice, office in Oakdale, 8.4 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Clinics, Eagan. 5.4 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 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)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, 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 state recorded a finding in December 2025. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- 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?
- Who is here at night? Are they awake, or asleep and on call?
- Who covers when the owner is sick, on vacation, or away for the day? Can we meet them?
- Is it one flat rate, or does it rise with care needs?
- Can you help someone who needs two people to move, or a mechanical lift?
- 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?
What we checked11 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 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here very low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Living Hope Homes Oak Grove provide?
Living Hope Homes Oak Grove is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 6 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Living Hope Homes Oak Grove?
No. We publish state licensing details for Living Hope Homes Oak Grove 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 Living Hope Homes Oak Grove 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. Living Hope Homes Oak Grove does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Living Hope Homes Oak Grove?
Visit Living Hope Homes Oak Grove at 1805 60th Street East, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077.
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