The Lodges of Elko

Last evaluation

July 23, 2026

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

4 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

1 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

2 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (July 23, 2026, state report GJ6F11)

MDH: “On July 20, 2026, through July 23, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed July 23, 2026: 13 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 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 640: 144G.42 Subd. 7 Posting information for reporting suspected c Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to support protection and safety by posting the 911 emergency number near telephones provided by the assisted living facility.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to support protection and safety by posting the 911 emergency number near telephones provided by the assisted living facility. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

  Rule cited: “The facility shall support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment by: (1) posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided [...]”

• 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, as required in Appendix Z, and the licensee failed to prominently post the EPP.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content, as required in Appendix Z, and the licensee failed to prominently post the 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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) 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 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 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) 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: “(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) [...]”

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

Fines assessed by MDH

• Tag 780 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
• Tag 810 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (b-F) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
• Tag 2310 (144g.91 Subd. 4 (a) - Appropriate Care And Services): $1,000.00

Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $2,500.00.

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• March 28, 2025 · report HL307646582M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident's insulin was not refilled or administered per providers orders and the resident required hospitalization due to hyperglycemia.”

  “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. While managing the resident's medications, the facility ran out of diabetic medications, including insulin. Additionally, the facility did not provide the necessary medications supplies, such as needles, so the resident's diabetic medication could be administered as ordered by his medical provider. The resident was hospitalized multiple times while the situation existed.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility sent the resident to the hospital on multiple occasions.”

  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 February 25, 2025: 2 correction orders

  • Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document the reason medications were not given as prescribed and to document follow-up procedures to ensure the resident's needs were met for one of one (R1) resident reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to document the reason medications were not given as prescribed and to document follow-up procedures to ensure the resident's needs were met for one of one (R1) resident reviewed. The licensee also failed to ensure a system was in place to identify, document, track, and evaluate medication errors. [...]”

    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 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.”

• March 28, 2025 · report HL307649983M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when continuous blood sugar monitoring (CGM) device was not changed as ordered.”

  “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 orders, or a treatment plan for the resident's continuous glucose monitor present in the resident record.”

  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 March 18, 2025: 2 correction orders

  • Tag 1960: 144G.72 Subd. 5 Documentation of administration of treatments Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) day
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to implement and document the treatment procedure of changing the blood glucose monitoring sensor for one of one resident (R1).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to implement and document the treatment procedure of changing the blood glucose monitoring sensor for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

    Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”

  • 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.”

• November 22, 2024 · report HL307641223C
  Details

  Survey completed November 8, 2024: 1 correction order

  • Tag 110: 144G.10 Subdivision 1a Assisted living director license required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: TWO (2) DAYS
    Details

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review the facility failed to employ a licensed assisted living director (LALD). This had the potential to affect all residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must employ an assisted living director licensed or permitted by the Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Supports.”

• September 10, 2022 · report HL30764001C

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 10 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.