Sterling Park Senior Living

Last evaluation

February 27, 2025

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

3 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

0 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

2 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (February 27, 2025, state report VNXF11)

MDH: “On February 24, 2025, through February 27, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”

Survey completed February 27, 2025: 8 correction orders

• Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
  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 observation, 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. In addition, the licensee failed to post a daily staff schedule in a central location following requirements. 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) 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: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”

• 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 the required content for an emergency relocation for one of three residents (R4).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation for one of three residents (R4). [...]”

  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 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-E).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-E). [...]”

  Rule cited: “(a) Training and competency evaluations for all unlicensed personnel must include the following: (1) documentation requirements for all services provided; (2) reports of changes in the resident's condition to the supervisor designated by the facility; (3) [...]”

• Tag 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted direct supervision of staff performing a delegated task within 30 days of providing services for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted direct supervision of staff performing a delegated task within 30 days of providing services for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”

  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 [...]”

From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• December 13, 2024 · report HL241024461M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when they failed to ensure nursing follow-up after staff reported the resident's skin issues. The resident was hospitalized twice for skin concerns.”

  “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. Nursing staff failed to assess, monitor, and notify resident's primary care provider when unlicensed staff reported changes in the resident's skin condition.”

  Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”

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

  Survey completed September 25, 2024: 4 correction orders

  • Tag 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to utilize person-centered planning and service delivery processes for one of one resident (R2) who required weight monitoring.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to utilize person-centered planning and service delivery processes for one of one resident (R2) who required weight monitoring. Nursing staff did not address R2's refusals for weight monitoring or make attempts to obtain equipment to accommodate R2's needs or ensure physician's orders were followed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “All assisted living facilities shall: (1) distribute to residents the assisted living bill of rights; (2) provide services in a manner that complies with the Nurse Practice Act in sections 148.171 to 148.285; (3) utilize a person-centered planning and service [...]”

  • Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when facility staff failed to identify a change in condition on two separate occasions resulting in hospitalization for one of one resident (R1).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when facility staff failed to identify a change in condition on two separate occasions resulting in hospitalization for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”

  • Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure healthcare and assisted living services were provided by people who were properly trained and competent to perform their duties, when licensed staff did not follow physician's orders to notify the medical provider after an increase in weight was observed for one of one resident (R2).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure healthcare and assisted living services were provided by people who were properly trained and competent to perform their duties, when licensed staff did not follow physician's orders to notify the medical provider after an increase in weight was observed for one of one resident (R2). This resulted in R2 being hospitalized. [...]”

    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 [...]”

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

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

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and 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.”

• December 13, 2024 · report HL241025981M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when facility staff were aware of a change in condition and did not contact the primary care provider. The resident was hospitalized for fluid overload.”

  “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. Facility staff did not follow physician's orders and failed to report noted increases in weight to the physician and the resident was hospitalized for fluid overload.”

  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 September 25, 2024: 4 correction orders

  • Tag 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to utilize person-centered planning and service delivery processes for one of one resident (R2) who required weight monitoring.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to utilize person-centered planning and service delivery processes for one of one resident (R2) who required weight monitoring. Nursing staff did not address R2's refusals for weight monitoring or make attempts to obtain equipment to accommodate R2's needs or ensure physician's orders were followed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “All assisted living facilities shall: (1) distribute to residents the assisted living bill of rights; (2) provide services in a manner that complies with the Nurse Practice Act in sections 148.171 to 148.285; (3) utilize a person-centered planning and service [...]”

  • Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when facility staff failed to identify a change in condition on two separate occasions resulting in hospitalization for one of one resident (R1).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards when facility staff failed to identify a change in condition on two separate occasions resulting in hospitalization for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”

  • Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure healthcare and assisted living services were provided by people who were properly trained and competent to perform their duties, when licensed staff did not follow physician's orders to notify the medical provider after an increase in weight was observed for one of one resident (R2).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure healthcare and assisted living services were provided by people who were properly trained and competent to perform their duties, when licensed staff did not follow physician's orders to notify the medical provider after an increase in weight was observed for one of one resident (R2). This resulted in R2 being hospitalized. [...]”

    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 [...]”

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

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

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and 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.”

• December 5, 2023 · report HL241025443M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when they failed to provided safety checks which resulted in the resident being unresponsive from a suspected suicide attempt. The resident required hospitalization.”

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

  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. Video footage indicated staff members did not entered the resident's room in 24 hours before they found her unresponsive. Additionally, the resident had a history of drug overdose by hoarding medications from her automatic medication dispense machine system (MD2). The facility allowed the resident to continue to use MD2, and failed to provide supervision for medication administration.”

  Action taken by facility: “Facility coordinated care with other medical providers.”

  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 October 27, 2023: 4 correction orders

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

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have an accurate service delivery record system for unlicensed personnel (ULP) to implement scheduled services as identified in the service plan 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 have an accurate service delivery record system for unlicensed personnel (ULP) to implement scheduled services as identified in the service plan for two of two residents (R1, R2) with records reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”

    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 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized self-administration of medication assessment to determine if an automatic medication dispensing system (MD2) was a safe option for one of one resident (R1) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized self-administration of medication assessment to determine if an automatic medication dispensing system (MD2) was a safe option for one of one resident (R1) with records reviewed. As a result, R1 hoarded her medications and had multiple episodes of medication overdose. [...]”

    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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide safety checks for one of one resident (R1) with records reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide safety checks for one of one resident (R1) with records reviewed. R1 had a history of attempted suicide by overdose of medications. Staff failed to provided safety checks for 24 hours prior to R1's second overdose. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”

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

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”

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 109 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.