Lilisity

Assisted Living

Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh

325 Scots Avenue Se, Mcintosh, MN 56556 · Map
Licensed for 30 residents · POPLAR MEADOWS OF MCINTOSH

State license active
Is this your community? Claim this listing

Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh is a state-licensed assisted living community in Mcintosh, Minnesota. It is licensed for 30 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.

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

Prices

This community does not publish its prices.

Area costs

Assisted Living in Minnesota typically starts at $2,200 to $4,800 a month. Based on 74 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price.

Lilisity’s independent report

What the public record shows

Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.

State inspections

0Substantiated investigations

Last evaluation: Apr 22, 2026. See the record

License

Active, 30 residents

Assisted Living Facility 425064, current license dated Jun 1, 2026. Licensee POPLAR MEADOWS OF MCINTOSH.

Nearest emergency room

7.8 miles

Essentia Health Fosston.

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.

CommunityDistanceLicensed capacityPublished starting priceLicenseInspection citations
Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh this community30Not publishedActive0 substantiated
Cornerstone Residence of Fosst7.2 mi41Not publishedActive1 substantiated
Bethany Assisted Living7.2 mi28Not publishedActive0 substantiated
Prairie Pines Community8.0 mi25Not publishedActive0 substantiated
Fair Meadow Assisted Living19.8 mi25Not publishedActive0 substantiated
State inspection record0 substantiated
Last evaluation
April 22, 2026
Evaluations on record
2
Investigations substantiated
0 kept 7 years
Inconclusive
0 kept 4 years
Unsubstantiated
0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (April 22, 2026, state report Y7W111)

MDH: “On April 20, 2026, through April 22, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed April 22, 2026: 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 ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed and implemented a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents, which included reviewing the staffing plan at least twice per year.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed and implemented a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents, which included reviewing the staffing plan at least twice per year. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”

  • Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
    Details

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

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

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

  • Tag 485: 144G.41 Subdivision 1.a (a) Minimum requirements; required food 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 assisted living contract did not require any resident to include and pay for meals as a part of their assisted living contract.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not require any resident to include and pay for meals as a part of their assisted living contract. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must offer to provide or make available at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) [...]”

  • Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), including completion of a TB screening and a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-J, registered nurse (RN)-C).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), including completion of a TB screening and a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-J, registered nurse (RN)-C). [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) The facility must establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis infection control program according to the most current tuberculosis infection control guidelines issued by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division [...]”

  • Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure resident records included documentation of the registered nurse (RN) face-to-face medication management reassessments for two of three residents (R6, R7) who received medication management services.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure resident records included documentation of the registered nurse (RN) face-to-face medication management reassessments for two of three residents (R6, R7) who received medication management services. [...]”

    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, [...]”

Show all 12
  • Tag 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
    Details

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

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

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

  • Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Immediate · fine: $1,000.00 assessed
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure current employee records contained all the required content to include a current background study clearance letter for four of nine employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP/cook (C)-F, ULP-G, ULP-H).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure current employee records contained all the required content to include a current background study clearance letter for four of nine employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP/cook (C)-F, ULP-G, ULP-H). This had the potential to affect all residents living within the facility. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”

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

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for three of three residents (R5, R6, R7).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for three of three residents (R5, R6, R7). [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”

  • Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication management plan for each resident to include all required content for two of four residents (R3, R5).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication management plan for each resident to include all required content for two of four residents (R3, R5). [...]”

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

  • Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration 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) documented resident-specific instructions for medications for two of four residents (R3, R7) whose medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) documented resident-specific instructions for medications for two of four residents (R3, R7) whose medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP). [...]”

    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 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record all required content for disposition of the medications for one of two residents (R1) upon discharge.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record all required content for disposition of the medications for one of two residents (R1) upon discharge. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”

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

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process was followed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-I) observed administering medications.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process was followed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-I) observed administering medications. [...]”

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

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

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

Fines assessed by MDH

  • Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
  • Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $1,000.00

Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $1,500.00.

Earlier evaluations (1)
  • July 12, 2023: report W7WC11 · 17 correction orders
    Details

    Survey completed July 12, 2023: 17 correction orders

    • Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one or more persons were available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, who were responsible for responding to the requests of residents, were located in the same building, in an attached building, or on a contiguous campus with the facility in order to respond within a reasonable amount of time.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one or more persons were available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, who were responsible for responding to the requests of residents, were located in the same building, in an attached building, or on a contiguous campus with the facility in order to respond within a reasonable amount of time. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure a staffing schedule was posted as required. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”

    • Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: 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 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post the required information related to the grievance procedure.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to post the required information related to the grievance procedure. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff and visitors. [...]”

      Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”

    • Tag 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

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview the licensee failed to prominently post a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP). This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”

    • Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents. This deficient condition had the ability to affect a limited number of staff and 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 [...]”

    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) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide required employee training on fire safety and evacuation.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, record review, and interview, the licensee failed to provide required employee training on fire safety and evacuation. 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 930: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (d-e; 1-4) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract included all required content for two of two residents (R1, R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract included all required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(d) The contract must include a description of the facility's complaint resolution process available to residents, including the name and contact information of the person representing the facility who is designated to handle and resolve complaints. [...]”

    • 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 direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual begins working for the licensee for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-D).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual begins working for the licensee for one of one 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 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 orientation to assisted living statutes included all the required content for one of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -B).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living statutes included all the required content for one of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -B). [...]”

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

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment using the uniform assessment tool on day 14 for one of one resident (R2), and day 90 for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

      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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure service plans were updated for one of two residents (R1).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans were updated 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 an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited [...]”

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

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a medication management assessment was completed by the

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a medication management assessment was completed by the registered nurse/RN to determine what medication management services would be provided and included identification and review in all required areas for one of one resident (R2). [...]”

      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 1710: 144G.71 Subd. 3 Individualized medication monitoring and reas Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted a face-to-face medication management reassessment to include all required content for one of one resident (R1) who received medication management services.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted a face-to-face medication management reassessment to include all required content for one of one resident (R1) who received medication management services. [...]”

      Rule cited: “The assisted living facility must monitor and reassess the resident's medication management services as needed under subdivision 2 when the resident presents with symptoms or other issues that may be medication-related and, at a minimum, annually.”

    • Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication management plan for each resident to include all required content for two of two residents (R1, R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain a current individualized medication management plan for each resident to include all required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”

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

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process was followed for one of four unlicensed personnel (ULP-D); failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of four residents (R7); and failed to ensure insulin was administered per the manufacturer's instructions for one of one resident (R1) whom received medication management services.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process was followed for one of four unlicensed personnel (ULP-D); failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of four residents (R7); and failed to ensure insulin was administered per the manufacturer's instructions for one of one resident (R1) whom received medication management services. [...]”

      Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”

    • Tag 1770: 144G.71 Subd. 9 Documentation of medication setup Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”

      Rule cited: “Documentation of dates of medication setup, name of medication, quantity of dose, times to be administered, route of administration, and name of person completing medication setup must be done at the time of setup.”

    • Tag 2140: 144G.83 Subd. 3 Supervising staff training Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the designated person overseeing staff training in the care of individuals with dementia (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -B), had documented evidence of competency or knowledge test required by the commissioner.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the designated person overseeing staff training in the care of individuals with dementia (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) -B), had documented evidence of competency or knowledge test required by the commissioner. This had the potential to affect all residents and staff of the facility. [...]”

      Rule cited: “Persons providing or overseeing staff training must have experience and knowledge in the care of individuals with dementia, including: (1) two years of work experience related to Alzheimer's disease or other dementias, or in health care, gerontology, or [...]”

    From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.

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 30 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 POPLAR MEADOWS OF MCINTOSH
License type
Assisted Living Facility
License number
425064
License status
Active
Current license dated
2026-06-01
Licensed capacity
30
Licensee
POPLAR MEADOWS OF MCINTOSH
Administrator/Authorized Agent
Rebecca Boehrnsen

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 7.8 mi, nursing home 0.6 mi, pharmacy 7.0 mi
Nearest hospital with an emergency room
Essentia Health Fosston, Fosston. 7.8 miles away, straight line.
Nearest Medicare nursing home
McIntosh Senior Living, Mcintosh. 0.6 miles away, straight line.
Nearest home health agency office
Riverview Home Care, Crookston. 35.6 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
Nearest pharmacy
Pharmacy. 7.0 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
Area
USDA classes ZIP code 56556 as rural (rural area).
Hospice
2 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56556.
Essentia Health Hospice West, office in Fosston, 7.8 miles away, straight line
Nearest geriatric medicine practice
First Care Medical Services, Fosston. 7.8 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 high; 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
FEMA has a flood map for this community (effective November 29, 1974), but it is not in FEMA's digital flood map data, so the zone at this address could not be read. FEMA's Map Service Center has the map. (FEMA flood map)
Wildfire risk to homes
In McIntosh, MN, risk to homes is greater than 95% of communities in Minnesota and 72% of communities nationwide. USDA rates the whole town or city, not this address. (USDA Forest Service, Wildfire Risk to Communities, April 2026)
FEMA National Risk Index
Overall: relatively high. By hazard: inland flooding relatively high, wildfire relatively high, tornado relatively moderate, heat wave very low, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)

A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.

Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record

Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.

  1. The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
  2. What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
  3. How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
  4. What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
  5. What fees are charged at move-in?
  6. How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
  7. How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
  8. Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
  9. For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
  10. Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
What we 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.

SourceData as ofWhat we found
Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection recordsSep 28, 2026See above
U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour casesOct 15, 2026Nothing on record
OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016Oct 15, 2026Nothing on record
FEMA flood mapSee above
USDA wildfire riskApr 15, 2026See above
FEMA National Risk IndexSee above
CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmaciesSee above
HUD Multifamily Properties - AssistedJul 6, 2026Nothing on record
State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory)Sep 20, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Hospice - General InformationAug 19, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Home Health Care AgenciesMay 27, 2026Nothing on record
The community’s own websiteNo plain statements of services found
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh provide?

Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Mcintosh, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 30 residents.

Does Lilisity rate Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh?

No. We publish state licensing details for Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh 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 Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh 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. Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh does not publish its prices.

How do I contact Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh?

Use Poplar Meadows of Mcintosh's website, poplarmeadow.com, or visit at 325 Scots Avenue Se, Mcintosh, MN 56556.

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

Report a wrong fact

How Lilisity works. The only scores or rankings Lilisity publishes are the Top Communities list and the Excellence Awards, both built from phone-verified resident and family interviews. Communities can pay Lilisity a flat monthly fee to manage their own listing: photos, prices, contact details, and receiving the inquiries families choose to send them. The fee is the same no matter how many families contact them or move in. Senior Living Alliance, which runs Lilisity, offers the same listing to its member communities as part of their membership; members pay SLA for its resident and family interview program. No community pays Lilisity per inquiry, per referral or per move-in. Payment never changes a testimonial, a rating, or the order of search results. The "Nearby Senior Living Alliance communities" box shows member communities only. How we verify testimonials · How we are paid