Assisted Living and Memory Care
New Perspective Roseville
2750 North Victoria Street, Roseville, MN 55113 · Map
Licensed for 107 residents · NEW PERSPECTIVE ROSEVILLE
New Perspective Roseville is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Roseville, Minnesota. It is licensed for 107 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
Starting prices the community publishes, with the date we checked each one and a link to where it is published. Care charges are usually added after an assessment.
| Care | Starting at | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Assisted Living | $1,950 /mo | Oct 12, 2026 |
| Memory Care | $2,150 /mo | Oct 12, 2026 |
Area costs
Care and services
From the community’s website
What New Perspective Roseville says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Has a separate memory care unit, wing or neighborhood.
Designed for those experiencing dementia or other memory impairments, our licensed and secured memory care neighborhood offers specially trained employees, intentional programming, unique community features, and more.
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026) - Offers respite or short-term stays.
Respite Care
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026) - Provides transportation.
Transportation
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026) - 3 meals a day.
Three meals daily, plus snacks and special events
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026) - Pets allowed.
Pet-friendly community
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026) - Apartment types named: studio, two-bedroom.
Floor plan styles (studio, one- and two-bedroom) vary by location.
(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.
License
Active, 107 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425760, current license dated Jul 1, 2026. Licensee NEW PERSPECTIVE ROSEVILLE.
Nearest emergency room
5.1 miles
M Health Fairview St John'S Hospital, rated 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Perspective Roseville this community | 107 | $1,950/mo | Active | 3 substantiated | |
| Best Care Assisted Living | 0.1 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Amira Choice Roseville at Lexi | 0.4 mi | 145 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Recovery Home Health Care | 0.4 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| The Friendship Home Community, Lydia Drive West | 0.5 mi | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record3 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- October 15, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 3 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 3 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (October 15, 2025, state report ODTS11)
MDH: “On October 13, 2025, through October 15, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed October 15, 2025: 9 correction orders
- Tag 100: 144G.10 Subdivision 1 License required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to manage, control, and/or operate the entire building as an assisted living facility when a third-party therapy company occupied and provided therapy services to the general public within the licensee's building.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to manage, control, and/or operate the entire building as an assisted living facility when a third-party therapy company occupied and provided therapy services to the general public within the licensee's building. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a)(1) Beginning August 1, 2021, no assisted living facility may operate in Minnesota unless it is licensed under this chapter. [...]”
- 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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control (IC) program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control for one of three unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control (IC) program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control for one of three unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-G). [...]”
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: Twenty-one (21) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with Minnesota State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with Minnesota State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules chapter 7511. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that functioned and were interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm caused all alarms in the dwelling unit to actuate.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that functioned and were interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm caused all alarms in the dwelling unit to actuate. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
Show all 9
- 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 drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide the required 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 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted a 30-day supervision of a task delegated to one of three unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted a 30-day supervision of a task delegated to one of three unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-D). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Staff who perform delegated nursing or therapy tasks must be supervised by an appropriate licensed health professional or a registered nurse according to the assisted living facility's policy where the services are being provided to verify that the work [...]”
- Tag 1540: 144G.64 (a) (3) Training in Dementia, Mental Illness, and De- Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of three unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-D, ULP-E) received the required amount of dementia care training and mental illness and de-escalation training within the required time frame.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of three unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-D, ULP-E) received the required amount of dementia care training and mental illness and de-escalation training within the required time frame. [...]”
Rule cited: “(3) for assisted living facilities with dementia care, direct-care staff must have completed at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 80 working hours of the employment start date. [...]”
- Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored based on the registered nurse's assessment for one of four residents (R3) who had medication management services.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored based on the registered nurse's assessment for one of four residents (R3) who had medication management services. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
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 PhysicalEnvironment): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- May 5, 2023: report M7X111 · 17 correction orders
Details
Survey completed May 2, 2023: 17 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 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 included all required documented training and competencies for unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-B) who would provide medications for residents with unplanned time away from home when a licensed nurse was not available.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required documented training and competencies for unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-B) who would provide medications for residents with unplanned time away from home when a licensed nurse was not available. [...]”
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 maintain a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan 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 (EP) plan 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 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) 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 interconnection of smoke alarms inside resident units throughout the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide interconnection of smoke alarms inside resident units throughout the facility. This has the potential to directly affect the residents, visitors, and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) 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 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 all 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 [...]”
Show all 17
- 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)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the complete content of the fire safety and evacuation plan.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, record review, and interview, the licensee failed to provide the complete content of the fire safety and evacuation plan. This has the potential to directly affect the safety of all residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations prior to providing services for one of two employees (registered nurse (RN)-A).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations prior to providing services for one of two employees (registered nurse (RN)-A). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The orientation must contain the following topics: (1) an overview of this chapter; (2) an introduction and review of the facility's policies and procedures related to the provision of assisted living services by the individual staff person; (3) handling [...]”
- 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)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure annual training included all required topics for each 12 months of employment, for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). [...]”
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: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive nursing assessment within the required 90-day timeframe for two of five residents (R4, R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive nursing assessment within the required 90-day timeframe for two of five residents (R4, R5). [...]”
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, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the current service plan included a signature or other authentication by the licensee or resident or resident's representative to document agreement of services to be provided for two of five residents (R2, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the current service plan included a signature or other authentication by the licensee or resident or resident's representative to document agreement of services to be provided for two of five residents (R2, 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 1820: 144G.71 Subd. 13 Prescriptions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure written or electronically recorded prescriptions were obtained for one of five residents (R2) who had
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure written or electronically recorded prescriptions were obtained for one of five residents (R2) who had medication management services. [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be a current written or electronically recorded prescription as defined in section 151.01, subdivision 16a, for all prescribed medications that the assisted living facility is managing for the resident.”
- 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 date medications when first opened for multiple residents and ensure medications were stored securely for four of four residents (R2, R3, R6, R11) with
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to date medications when first opened for multiple residents and ensure medications were stored securely for four of four residents (R2, R3, R6, R11) with medications management services. [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to discard expired medication in the medication refrigerator for one of four residents (R12).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to discard expired medication in the medication refrigerator for one of four residents (R12). 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 an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a treatment management record to include all required content for one of three residents (R4) who had a treatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop a treatment management record to include all required content for one of three residents (R4) who had a treatment. [...]”
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 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 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 a memory
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, document review, and interview, the licensee failed to develop a memory care site-specific safety risk assessment plan to identify hazard vulnerabilities and mitigations on and around the property to protect memory care residents from harm. This has the potential to directly affect staff and all memory care residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”
- Tag 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individualized activity plan contained all required content for one of one resident (R2) with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individualized activity plan contained all required content for one of one resident (R2) with record reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Immediate
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for one of three residents (R4) with bed rails, and one of one resident (R8) with oxygen.
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 one of three residents (R4) with bed rails, and one of one resident (R8) with oxygen. [...]”
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: $3,000.00.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- February 28, 2025 · report HL200227585M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused a resident when the AP (a facility staff) had unwanted physical and sexual contact with the resident. The AP kissed the resident on the cheek and fondled his genitals multiple times.”
“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. The AP received training from the facility on maltreatment, sexual abuse, and resident boundaries and although the AP denied the allegation, there was a preponderance of evidence that the incidents occurred based on the resident's consistent report of events and the AP's history of abusive behavior toward residents.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility terminated the AP for a prior abuse allegation. The facility investigated the allegation by interviewing other residents.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed February 6, 2025: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services for two of two residents (R1 R2) reviewed for maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services for two of two residents (R1 R2) reviewed for maltreatment. [...]”
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 two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person was responsible for maltreatment of R1 (#HL200223047C/HL200227585M) and the facility was responsible for maltreatment of R2 (#HL200225780C/HL200228542M),in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. [...]”
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 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) Days
- February 28, 2025 · report HL200228542M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident who had multiple falls with injuries, when they failed to investigate to determine the root cause of the falls or make changes to the care plan to include interventions to reduce the risk of further falls. The facility also neglected to provide showers or incontinence cares which led to the resident sleeping in dirty sheets.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident received skin tears, bruises, rug burns, and a head wound from falls. The facility failed to update the plan of care with individualized fall prevention interventions. The facility failed to ensure staff completed showers and incontinence cares as required according to the assessed needs of the resident.”
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 February 6, 2025: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services for two of two residents (R1 R2) reviewed for maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services for two of two residents (R1 R2) reviewed for maltreatment. [...]”
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 two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person was responsible for maltreatment of R1 (#HL200223047C/HL200227585M) and the facility was responsible for maltreatment of R2 (#HL200225780C/HL200228542M),in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. [...]”
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 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) Days
- March 26, 2024 · report HL200228968M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) financially exploited multiple residents when she took their credit or debit cards and used them to buy personal items for herself.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. Law enforcement conducted an investigation which included security camera footage from locations in which unauthorized purchases occurred and showed the AP present.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility terminated the AP and reported the incidents to the police department.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed February 20, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure three of three resident reviewed (R1, R2 R3) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure three of three resident reviewed (R1, R2 R3) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual 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
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- November 6, 2024 · report HL200225921M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), a facility staff member, abused the resident when the AP forced the resident to sit in a chair.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. Due to conflicting information provided by witnesses and the AP, it could not be determined whether abuse occurred.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility suspended the AP while completing an internal investigation. In addition, the facility completed education with staff on reporting suspected abuse.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed October 21, 2024: no correction orders issued.
Unsubstantiated investigations (3)
- January 12, 2026 · report HL200226362M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) financially exploited three residents (resident #1, resident #2, and resident #3) when he stole money and cigarettes.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: financial exploitation not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was not substantiated. Although the residents reported they had money and items stolen from them, there was not a preponderance of evidence to indicate the AP stole these items. After the AP's employment ended, other residents continued to report theft of their money and property. Multiple staff members had keys to unlock resident rooms.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility investigated the incident and installed video cameras.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed December 18, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- July 30, 2024 · report HL200224141M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the facility failed to implement appropriate interventions to ensure the residents safety when smoking cigarettes. The resident was found to have smoked in her apartment where an oxygen supply is kept.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. The facility assessed the resident to be able to safely smoke and provided an outside location for smoking. The resident understood the risk of smoking indoors and close to an oxygen supply, however, the resident had experienced a loss the day of the incident and was in a state of grief.”
Action taken by facility: “Facility leadership followed up with resident regarding incident and conducted a risk assessment of the resident.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed July 1, 2024: no correction orders issued.
- March 27, 2024 · report HL200224977C
Details
Survey completed February 20, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure three of three resident reviewed (R1, R2 R3) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure three of three resident reviewed (R1, R2 R3) were free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual 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”
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 107 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 NEW PERSPECTIVE ROSEVILLE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 425760
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-07-01
- Licensed capacity
- 107
- Licensee
- NEW PERSPECTIVE ROSEVILLE
- County
- Ramsey County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Kate Ryg
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.
Staff pay and workplace safety1 OSHA inspection, no violations cited
Federal records about how the employer here treats its staff.
OSHA workplace safety inspections
OSHA inspects workplaces for staff safety, such as lifting, needles, chemicals and workplace violence. It does not inspect resident care.
- Dec 10, 2020: fatality or catastrophe inspection, partial (health). Case closed May 10, 2021. No violations cited. OSHA record. OSHA recorded the employer as 102336 - Roseville Ops LLC DBA New Perspective Roseville.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, as of Oct 15, 2026, inspections since 2016. Penalties can change while a case is open or contested.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 5.1 mi, nursing home 0.0 mi, pharmacy 1.6 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview St John'S Hospital, Maplewood. 5.1 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- The Estates at Roseville LLC, Roseville. 0.0 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Presbyterian Homes Home Care, Roseville. 0.9 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.6 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55113 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Larpenteur Ave Dialysis, Roseville, 2.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Fmc Dialysis - Roseville, Roseville, 2.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Arden Hills Dialysis Unit, Arden Hills, 2.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 24 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55113.
Presbyterian Homes Hospice Inc, office in Roseville, 0.9 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Ecumen Hospice, office in Shoreview, 1.7 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Interim Healthcare Of The Twin Cities, Inc., office in Roseville, 2.0 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Steven Lawler, MD, Minneapolis. 4.0 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 February 2025. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- Your published starting price is a base rate. What would the total monthly cost be for my parent's needs?
- How much have prices gone up in each of the last three years?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- 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 | See above |
| 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 | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does New Perspective Roseville provide?
New Perspective Roseville is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Roseville, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 107 residents.
Does Lilisity rate New Perspective Roseville?
No. We publish state licensing details for New Perspective Roseville 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 New Perspective Roseville 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. The starting prices it publishes are in the Prices section on this page.
How do I contact New Perspective Roseville?
Use New Perspective Roseville's website, npseniorliving.com/communities/roseville, or visit at 2750 North Victoria Street, Roseville, MN 55113.
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