Assisted Living
Maple Care Homes
8997 Monteque Terrace, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 · Map
Licensed for 5 residents · MAPLE CARE HOMES
Maple Care Homes is a state-licensed assisted living community in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. It is licensed for 5 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, 5 residents
Assisted Living Facility 423567, current license dated Feb 1, 2026. Licensee MAPLE CARE HOMES.
Nearest emergency room
5.7 miles
Mercy 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maple Care Homes this community | 5 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Kindheart Homes | 0.1 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Avid Home and Community Health | 0.2 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| We Care Home Health Services L | 0.3 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Charity Care | 0.5 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- July 19, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 1
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (July 19, 2024, state report 3FOK11)
MDH: “On July 17, 2024, through July 19, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed July 19, 2024: 21 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 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 485: 144G.41 Subdivision 1. (13)(i)(A)and(C) Minimum Requirements Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not require any resident to include and pay for meals as a part of their assisted living package fee. In addition, the licensee failed to have a menu prepared at least one week in advance and made available to all residents. This had the potential to affect all residents of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- Tag 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 establish and maintain an infection control program that complied with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for incontinent brief changes for two of four residents (R2, R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complied with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for incontinent brief changes for two of four residents (R2, R3). [...]”
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 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 the employee record contained the required content for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-A).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the employee record contained the required content for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-A). [...]”
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. [...]”
Show all 21
- 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 maintain a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content as defined in Appendix Z. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to maintain a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content as defined in Appendix Z. 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 700: 144G.43 Subdivision 1 Resident record Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure personal health and medical information was kept private for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure personal health and medical information was kept private for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Resident records, whether written or electronic, must be protected against loss, tampering, or unauthorized disclosure in compliance with chapter 13 and other applicable relevant federal and state laws. [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation. This has the potential to directly affect the health, safety, and well-being of residents and staff. [...]”
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 provide all required contents on the fire safety and evacuation plan, the minimum number of fire evacuation drills, and the required minimum training of staff on the fire safety and
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on document review and interview, the licensee failed to provide all required contents on the fire safety and evacuation plan, the minimum number of fire evacuation drills, and the required minimum training of staff on the fire safety and evacuation plan. This has the potential to directly affect the safety of visitors, staff, and all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative for one of one resident (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 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 in affiliation with the assisted living license for seven of 13 employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-C, administrative assistant/unlicensed personnel (AA/ULP)-E, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F, ULP-G, ULP-H, ULP-I, ULP-J).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for seven of 13 employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-C, administrative assistant/unlicensed personnel (AA/ULP)-E, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F, ULP-G, ULP-H, ULP-I, ULP-J). [...]”
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 training and competency evaluations were completed for all required skill areas, prior to providing services, for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-A).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed for all required skill areas, prior to providing services, for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-A). [...]”
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 1530: 144G.64 TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct care employees
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct care employees received at least two hours training on topics related to dementia care for each 12 months of employment for two of three employees (registered nurse (RN)-B, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-I). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must meet the following training requirements: (1) supervisors of direct-care staff must have at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 120 working hours of the employment start [...]”
- Tag 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 the service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident or resident's designated representative to document agreement on the services to be provided for three of four residents (R1, R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident or resident's designated representative to document agreement on the services to be provided for three of four residents (R1, R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, 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 medications were documented after medication administration for three of three residents (R1, R2, 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 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 store prescription medication securely to permit only authorized personnel to have access.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to store prescription medication securely to permit only authorized personnel to have access. 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 [...]”
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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to discard expired medication for three of four residents (R1, R3, R4). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure time-sensitive medications were labeled with the date opened for one of two residents (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 1900: 144G.71 Subd. 21 Prohibitions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a prescription medication for one resident was not being saved for use by another, other than the resident prescribed for one of one resident (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a prescription medication for one resident was not being saved for use by another, other than the resident prescribed for one of one resident (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “No prescription drug supply for one resident may be used or saved for use by anyone other than the resident.”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide documentation in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, date of disposition, to whom the medications were given, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for two of three residents (R5, R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide documentation in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include medication's name, strength, prescription number as applicable, quantity, date of disposition, to whom the medications were given, and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition for two of three residents (R5, R6). [...]”
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 1970: 144G.72 Subd. 6 Treatment and therapy orders Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to ensure there were prescriber's orders for treatments for one of one resident (R3) who received treatments. [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”
- Tag 2410: 144G.91 Subd. 13 Personal and treatment privacy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure privacy was maintained during perineal care for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure privacy was maintained during perineal care for one of two residents (R2). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to consideration of their privacy, individuality, and cultural identity as related to their social, religious, and psychological well-being. [...]”
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- June 26, 2026 · report HL374379762M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (unknown staff member) abused the resident when they caused a laceration and swelling to the resident's eye. Additionally, the facility neglected the resident when they delayed obtaining medical care.”
“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. Although it could not be determined how the resident sustained the injury, it was determined systemic facility errors caused a delay in obtaining medical care. There were conflicting accounts from staff members about how and when the injury occurred, however the facility staff failed to report the injury to leadership. The extent of the resident's injuries was discovered when a manager went to the facility and saw the resident had swelling around his right eye and a laceration which required medical intervention. The resident went to the emergency room (ER), received closure of the laceration and evaluation for further head injuries. [...]”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed May 20, 2026: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to implement appropriate and up-to-date nursing interventions to meet the mobility needs for one of one resident (R1) with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to implement appropriate and up-to-date nursing interventions to meet the mobility needs for one of one resident (R1) with record reviewed. The licensee failed to obtain therapy evaluations and adaptive/protective equipment to protect R1 from injury. The licensee allowed R1 to crawl on his hands and knees on the linoleum floors (un-padded). As a result, R1 continued to have falls and skin injuries. [...]”
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 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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
- May 14, 2025 · report HL374378803M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) physically abused the resident when she slapped the resident in the face.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. There was a preponderance of evidence the AP slapped or hit the resident in the face after the resident dropped the AP's phone on the floor, which caused the resident to lose his balance and fall to the floor. A second staff member stated she witnessed the AP hit the resident. The resident had a mark on his face.”
Action taken by facility: “The AP was no longer employed at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed April 30, 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 an individual person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
Level 3: “a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to serious injury, impairment, or death”
Level 4: “a violation harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury or death, or a violation that was likely to lead to serious injury 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 5 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 MAPLE CARE HOMES
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 423567
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-02-01
- Licensed capacity
- 5
- Licensee
- MAPLE CARE HOMES
- County
- Hennepin County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Ayo Awoleye
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 5.7 mi, nursing home 1.7 mi, pharmacy 0.4 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Mercy Hospital, Coon Rapids. 5.7 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Saint Therese at Oxbow Lake, Brooklyn Park. 1.7 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Hennepin Home Health Care Inc, Brooklyn Park. 0.4 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 0.4 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55443 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fmc Dialysis - North Suburban, Coon Rapids, 2.4 miles away, straight line (has a shift starting after 5 pm; CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Kidney Care Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Center, 3.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita East River Road Dialysis, Fridley, 3.8 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 28 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55443.
Serenity Hospice Homes LLC, office in Brooklyn Park, 0.2 miles away, straight line
Mary T Hospice, office in Coon Rapids, 4.8 miles away, straight line
North Memorial Home Hlth Hospc, office in Robbinsdale, 6.7 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Allina Health System, Coon Rapids. 2.3 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
- 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 moderate. By hazard: inland flooding relatively moderate, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively high, 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 June 2026. 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 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 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here very low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | No plain statements of services found |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Maple Care Homes provide?
Maple Care Homes is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 5 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Maple Care Homes?
No. We publish state licensing details for Maple Care Homes 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 Maple Care Homes cost?
Assisted Living in Hennepin County typically starts at $2,500 to $4,400 a month. Based on 18 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Maple Care Homes does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Maple Care Homes?
Use Maple Care Homes's website, maplecarehome.com/assisted-living-home-brooklyn-park-mn, or visit at 8997 Monteque Terrace, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443.
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