Smc Ashton, 78th Court North

Last evaluation

July 15, 2026

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

1 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

0 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (July 15, 2026, state report XU1J11)

MDH: “On July 13, 2026 through July 15, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed July 15, 2026: 6 correction orders

• 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
  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 was 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 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) documented training and competencies for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) documented training and competencies for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B). [...]”

  Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, 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 have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving services under the provisional assisted living license. [...]”

  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 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) 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 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated with the licensee's assisted living health facility identification (HFID) number for three of twenty-one unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-H, ULP-I, ULP-J).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated with the licensee's assisted living health facility identification (HFID) number for three of twenty-one unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-H, ULP-I, ULP-J). [...]”

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

• Tag 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 unlicensed personnel (ULP) followed appropriate medication administration procedures for one of one employee (ULP-A).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure unlicensed personnel (ULP) followed appropriate medication administration procedures for one of one employee (ULP-A). [...]”

  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

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

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• August 4, 2023 · report HL345624163M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident (resident #1) when they failed to provide adequate supervision and services for the resident. The resident overdosed on illegal drugs twice in one week in another resident's room (resident #2).”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”

  “The facility was responsible for the maltreatment for both resident #1 and resident #2.”

  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 for both resident #1 and resident #2. The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was implemented after resident #1's first overdose. Resident #1's record indicated he required 1:1 staff support and supervision because of his self-injurious behaviors which included illegal drug use, yet his record did not indicate he received those services. Records indicated the facility was aware resident #2 kept illegal drugs in his room, yet facility staff allowed resident #1 to congregate in resident #2's room after his first overdose. Facility staff failed to implement the 1:1 supervision required for resident #2. In addition, both the facility neglected to ensure a safe location for resident #1 and resident #2 to discharge to. An equal opportunity employer.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility took steps to terminate resident #2's services to prevent other residents from potential future drug overdoses.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

  Survey completed May 31, 2023: 5 correction orders

  • Tag 1040: 144G.52 Subd. 7 Notice of contract termination required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to issue a written notice of termination for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to issue a written notice of termination for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed. R2 was asked to leave the licensee's facility after R2 continued to be non-compliant with the facility's house rules, yet R2's record lacked documentation he was given a written notice of termination at least 30 days ahead of the termination or at least 15 days ahead of an expedited termination. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) A facility terminating a contract must issue a written notice of termination according to this section. [...]”

  • Tag 1130: 144G.55 Subd. 2 Safe location Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a safe discharge location or adequate and needed service provider was identified for two former residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a safe discharge location or adequate and needed service provider was identified for two former residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. The licensee allowed R1 to self-discharge to move into an unknown family member's home. R2 moved out of the licensee's facility to an unknown location. [...]”

    Rule cited: “A safe location is not a private home where the occupant is unwilling or unable to care for the resident, a homeless shelter, a hotel, or a motel. [...]”

  • Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) performed reassessments for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) performed reassessments for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. R1 overdosed twice in one week on illegal substances while in R2's room. R1 was revived both times with an opioid reversal drug (Narcan) and admitted to a hospital. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure R2 was accurately assessed by an RN to reflect an increase in needs. [...]”

    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
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to accurately document services provided for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to accurately document services provided for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed. Unlicensed personnel (ULP) documented they provided services for R1 while is was in the hospital for two days due to a drug overdose. [...]”

    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 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two resident(s) reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two resident(s) reviewed (R1, R2) were 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.”

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.

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.