Assisted Living
Noble Cares
3240 Sprague Avenue, Anoka, MN 55303 · Map
Licensed for 4 residents · NOBLE CARES LLC
Noble Cares is a state-licensed assisted living community in Anoka, Minnesota. It is licensed for 4 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, 4 residents
Assisted Living Facility 422288, current license dated Oct 1, 2025. Licensee NOBLE CARES LLC.
Nearest emergency room
2.0 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noble Cares this community | 4 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated | |
| Liberty Mathan Health Care Ser, Sprague Avenue | 0.0 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Baikah Homes | 0.1 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| The Willows | 0.3 mi | 10 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| The Maples | 0.4 mi | 8 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
State inspection record3 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- September 4, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 3 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (September 4, 2025, state report PXSJ11)
MDH: “On September 2, 2025, through September 3, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed September 4, 2025: 12 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a written staffing plan that included an evaluation completed by the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) (as indicated in Minnesota Administrative Rule 4659.0180) at least twice a year.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a written staffing plan that included an evaluation completed by the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) (as indicated in Minnesota Administrative Rule 4659.0180) at least twice a 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 develop 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 develop a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents, employees, and visitors to 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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 1, isolated scope, scope/level letter A · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code Rules, Chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code Rules, Chapter 7511. This practice resulted in a level one violation (a violation that will cause only minimal impact on the resident and does not affect 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 situation has occurred only occasionally). [...]”
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, pattern scope, scope/level letter B · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements. This practice resulted in a level one violation (a violation that will cause only minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety) and was issued at a 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 [...]”
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 12
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 1, isolated scope, scope/level letter A · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. [...]”
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 required content, make all parts of the plan readily available, and provide 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 required content, make all parts of the plan readily available, and provide required training and drills. [...]”
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 the resident record specified in writing, specific instructions for inhaler use for one of one resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record specified in writing, specific instructions for inhaler use for one of one resident (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”
- Tag 1820: 144G.71 Subd. 13 Prescriptions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to maintain current medication orders for one of two residents (R1). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the [...]”
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 1830: 144G.71 Subd. 14 Renewal of prescriptions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to renew prescriptions at least every 12 months for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to renew prescriptions at least every 12 months for one of one resident (R2). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number [...]”
Rule cited: “Prescriptions must be renewed at least every 12 months or more frequently as indicated by the assessment in subdivision 2. Prescriptions for controlled substances must comply with chapter 152.”
- 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 and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 1970: 144G.72 Subd. 6 Treatment and therapy orders Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of two residents (R2) who received treatments.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for one of two residents (R2) 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. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- June 1, 2023: report K7SL11 · 12 correction orders
Details
Survey completed October 24, 2023: 2 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on a record review and interview, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
Survey completed August 3, 2023: 5 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No additional action required.”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that were interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm causes 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 were interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm causes 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) [...]”
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect 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 [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide readily available fire safety and evacuation plans within the facility and failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on a record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide readily available fire safety and evacuation plans within the facility and failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 820: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (g) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure physical facility elements did not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure physical facility elements did not constitute a distinct hazard to life. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(g) Existing construction or elements, including assisted living facilities that were registered as housing with services establishments under chapter 144D prior to August 1, 2021, shall be permitted to continue in use provided such use does not constitute a [...]”
Survey completed June 1, 2023: 5 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 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) 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 provide smoke alarms that are interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm causes 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 are interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm causes 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) [...]”
- Tag 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2)-(3) 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 provide adequately rated portable fire extinguishers as required for the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide adequately rated portable fire extinguishers as required for the facility. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”
- 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 a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on a record review and interview, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with the required elements, failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 820: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (g) Fire protection and physical environment Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Immediate · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure physical facility elements did not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure physical facility elements did not constitute a distinct hazard to life. The licensee failed to provide resident bedrooms # 1 and #2 with the minimum window opening meeting the minimum state standard for egress. This affected the occupied resident bedrooms #1 and #2 on the main floor. [...]”
Rule cited: “(g) Existing construction or elements, including assisted living facilities that were registered as housing with services establishments under chapter 144D prior to August 1, 2021, shall be permitted to continue in use provided such use does not constitute a [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 820 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (g) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $4,500.00.
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- October 8, 2024 · report HL361487700C
Details
Survey completed September 12, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
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 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
- August 21, 2023 · report HL361487504M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident displayed multiple behaviors and staff failed to assess and identify new vulnerabilities, susceptibilities to abuse, and/or new risks of harming others. No new interventions were implemented, and existing interventions were not evaluated.”
“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 provide supervision to protect the resident's health and safety following multiple behavior related incidents including elopements and the resident exchanging nude photos of herself to people she met online for cigarettes. The facility was aware of the resident's impulsive behaviors and failed to assess, identify, and implement interventions to mitigate risk or prevent future incidents. An equal opportunity employer.”
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 July 27, 2023: 7 correction orders
- Tag 430: 144G.40 Subd. 2 Uniform checklist disclosure of services Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the uniform checklist disclosure of services (UDALSA) accurately reflected services provided by the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the uniform checklist disclosure of services (UDALSA) accurately reflected services provided by the licensee. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must provide to prospective residents: (1) a disclosure of the categories of assisted living licenses available and the category of license held by the facility; (2) a written checklist listing all services permitted under [...]”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to submit a report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for one of one resident (R1) who eloped multiple times, lit her hair on fire while smoking on two occassions, ingested chemicals, and had repeated incidents of sharing nude photographs of herself online and with others.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to submit a report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for one of one resident (R1) who eloped multiple times, lit her hair on fire while smoking on two occassions, ingested chemicals, and had repeated incidents of sharing nude photographs of herself online and with others. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individualized abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was implemented for one of one residents (R1). R1's IAPP failed to identify interventions for the resident's behaviors or ways to minimize the risk of abuse and their susceptibility to abuse from others. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with required content to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative; and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) when the resident did not return from the emergency relocation within four days for one of one residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with required content to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative; and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) when the resident did not return from the emergency relocation within four days for one of one residents (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 1070: 144G.52 Subd. 10 Right to return Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to allow the return of one of one residents (R1) after she was sent to the emergency room, although the licensee had not issued a notice of termination of services or housing.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to allow the return of one of one residents (R1) after she was sent to the emergency room, although the licensee had not issued a notice of termination of services or housing. Hospital records indicated the licensee would not accept R1 back after being medically cleared to return to the facility, due to the resident's behaviors. R1 spent 11 days in the emergency room while other placement was secured. [...]”
Rule cited: “If a resident is absent from a facility for any reason, including an emergency relocation, the facility shall not refuse to allow a resident to return if a termination of housing has not been effectuated.”
- Tag 2290: 144G.91 Subd. 2 Legislative intent 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 included within the service plan and residency agreement contract language which limited the rights of one of one residents (R1). This had the potential to affect all residents and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “The rights established under this section for the benefit of residents do not limit any other rights available under law. [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility 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 430: 144G.40 Subd. 2 Uniform checklist disclosure of services Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
- May 3, 2023 · report HL361485020C
Details
Survey completed March 22, 2023: 5 correction orders
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review the licensee failed to ensure resident records included the required content of a signed service plan, signed initial nursing assessment, and a medication assesment, for one of two residents (R1) reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”
- Tag 900: 144G.50 Subdivision 1 Contract required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute an assisted living (AL) contract before offering housing and assisted living services for one of two residents (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute an assisted living (AL) contract before offering housing and assisted living services for one of two residents (R1) reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility may not offer or provide housing or assisted living services to any individual unless it has executed a written contract with the resident. [...]”
- Tag 1610: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (a-b) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) signed and dated an initial physical and cognitive assessment of a resident on or before the move-in date for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) signed and dated an initial physical and cognitive assessment of a resident on or before the move-in date for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 1630: 144G.70 Subd. 3 Temporary service plan Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to initiate a temporary service plan as required in Minnesota Statute (MN) 144G.70, subdivision (Subd.) 3, for one out of two residents (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to initiate a temporary service plan as required in Minnesota Statute (MN) 144G.70, subdivision (Subd.) 3, for one out of two residents (R1) reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all new admission residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “When a facility initiates services and the individualized assessment required in subdivision 2 has not been completed, the facility must complete a temporary plan and agreement with the resident for services. [...]”
- Tag 1700: 144G.71 Subd. 2 Provision of medication management services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse/licensed assisted living director (LALD)-E, conducted an individualized assessment to determine what Assisted Living services would be provided, and how the services would be provided for one of two residents (R1) records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident who requests medication management services, the facility shall, prior to providing medication management services, have a registered nurse, licensed health professional, or authorized prescriber under section 151.37 conduct an [...]”
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
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 4 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 NOBLE CARES LLC
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 422288
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-10-01
- Licensed capacity
- 4
- Licensee
- NOBLE CARES LLC
- County
- Anoka County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Ebenezer Akinbamijo
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 2.0 mi, nursing home 0.5 mi, pharmacy 1.0 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Mercy Hospital, Coon Rapids. 2.0 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Anoka Rehabilitation and Living Center, Anoka. 0.5 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Mary T Home Health, Coon Rapids. 4.1 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- CVS Pharmacy. 1.0 mile away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55303 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fmc - Coon Rapids, Coon Rapids, 1.9 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Mississippi Gateway Dialysis, Coon Rapids, 2.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Medical Care - Champlin, Champlin, 2.5 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 29 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55303.
Mary T Hospice, office in Coon Rapids, 4.1 miles away, straight line
Serenity Hospice Homes LLC, office in Brooklyn Park, 7.4 miles away, straight line
Triniti Hospice, office in Elk River, 10.9 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Group Health Inc, Coon Rapids. 3.9 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 moderate, wildfire relatively low, tornado relatively moderate, heat wave relatively moderate, 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 October 2024. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- The current license dates from 2025. 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 relatively 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 Noble Cares provide?
Noble Cares is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Anoka, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 4 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Noble Cares?
No. We publish state licensing details for Noble Cares 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 Noble Cares 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. Noble Cares does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Noble Cares?
Visit Noble Cares at 3240 Sprague Avenue, Anoka, MN 55303.
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