The Encore at Maplewood

Last evaluation

December 4, 2024

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

1 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

0 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (December 4, 2024, state report 6T0811)

MDH: “On December 2, 2024, through December 4, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed December 4, 2024: 17 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 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 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include required content for three of three residents (R2, R3, R4).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include required content for three of three residents (R2, R3, R4). [...]”

  Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”

• Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for one of two employees (registered nurse (RN)-A).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for one of two employees (registered nurse (RN)-A). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at an isolated scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large [...]”

  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 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the provider established and maintained a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included completion of a facility risk assessment.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the provider established and maintained a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which included completion of a facility risk assessment. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”

  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 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 comply with the current Minnesota Fire Code provisions.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the current Minnesota Fire Code provisions. These deficient conditions had the ability to affect all staff and residents. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”

  Rule cited: “for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) provide smoke alarms outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms; (iii) provide smoke [...]”

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

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• October 8, 2024 · report HL306144301M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to provide medication after the resident was hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia.”

  “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 have a system in place to ensure licensed staff were aware of the resident's return from the hospital. As a result, the resident's antibiotic, used to treat bacterial pneumonia, was not started until five days after the resident's discharge from the hospital. When initiated and although the resident had a history of refusing to take medications, facility staff failed to have a system in place to notify licensed staff when the resident refused his antibiotic. In addition, facility staff failed to notify the resident's primary care provider of the resident's hospital admission and new diagnoses.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility educated staff on attempting to give the resident medications three times, and notifying the nurse if the resident refused a medication.”

  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 4, 2024: 4 correction orders

  • Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted a change in condition assessment and failed to complete an assessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the previous assessment for one of one resident (R1) reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted a change in condition assessment and failed to complete an assessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the previous assessment for one of one resident (R1) reviewed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”

  • 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 notify the primary care provider following a hospitalization for one of one resident (R1) reviewed.

    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 notify the primary care provider following a hospitalization for one of one resident (R1) reviewed. In addition, the facility failed to notify the nurse when R1 returned from the hospital which delayed treatment for R1's pneumonia and failed to notify the nurse when R1 refused his course of antibiotics. [...]”

    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 2330: 144G.91 Subd. 5 Refusal of care or 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 document any efforts to educate a resident who was repeatedly refusing a medication ordered by a prescriber for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to refuse care or assisted living services and to be informed by the facility of the medical, health-related, or psychological consequences of refusing care or services.”

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

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

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident 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 46 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.