Assisted Living and Memory Care
The Preserve of Roseville
2600 Dale Street North, Roseville, MN 55113 · Map
Licensed for 120 residents · GENTLE TOUCH HEALTH INITIATIVES, LLC
The Preserve of Roseville is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Roseville, Minnesota. It is licensed for 120 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
This community does not publish its prices.
Area costs
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.
License
Active, 120 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 426115, current license dated Jul 14, 2026. Licensee GENTLE TOUCH HEALTH INITIATIVES, LLC.
Nearest emergency room
4.5 miles
M Health Fairview St John'S Hospital, rated 5 of 5 stars by CMS.
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.
| Community | Distance | Licensed capacity | Published starting price | License | Inspection citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Preserve of Roseville this community | 120 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated | |
| Recovery Home Health Care | 0.3 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Safecare Homes | 0.5 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| New Perspective Roseville | 0.7 mi | 107 | $1,950/mo | Active | 3 substantiated |
| Best Care Assisted Living | 0.8 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
State inspection record3 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- October 9, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 3 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 4 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (October 9, 2024, state report JO8F11)
MDH: “On October 7, 2024, through October 9, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed October 9, 2024: 3 correction orders
- Tag 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure all required orientation content was provided to employees prior to the provision of services for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure all required orientation content was provided to employees prior to the provision of services for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-A, ULP-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 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored securely for one of three residents (R3) with medication management services.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored securely for one of three residents (R3) with medication management services. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Immediate
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for one of one resident (R2) with grab bars (a common interchangeable name with bed rails or side rails, for a device attached to a bed and used to aid in bed and transfer mobility).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical, or nursing standards for one of one resident (R2) with grab bars (a common interchangeable name with bed rails or side rails, for a device attached to a bed and used to aid in bed and transfer mobility). [...]”
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.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- March 24, 2022: report VUYQ11 · 29 correction orders
Details
Survey completed July 5, 2022: 5 correction orders
- Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control (re-issued) Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E
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) which included baseline testing for four of four employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, ULP-P, ULP-R, and assisted living director (ALD)-Q) with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on 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) which included baseline testing for four of four employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, ULP-P, ULP-R, and assisted living director (ALD)-Q) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2)-(3) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
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 [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”
Survey completed March 24, 2022: 24 correction orders
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1 Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to show they met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations understood applicable statutes and rules; nor developed and/or implemented current policies and procedures as required with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to show they met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations understood applicable statutes and rules; nor developed and/or implemented current policies and procedures as required with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The commissioner may refuse to grant a provisional license, refuse to grant a license as a result of a change in ownership, refuse to renew a license, suspend or revoke a license, or impose a conditional license if the owner, controlling individual, or [...]”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control and current recommendations for COVID-19. This had the potential to affect all 90 residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”
- Tag 580: 144G.42 Subd. 2 Quality management Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to implement and maintain a quality management program appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to implement and maintain a quality management program appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided. This had the potential to affect all 90 residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility shall engage in quality management appropriate to the size of the facility and relevant to the type of services provided. [...]”
- 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) which included baseline testing and screening for 2 of 3 employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F, ULP-G) with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on 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) which included baseline testing and screening for 2 of 3 employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F, ULP-G) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2)-(3) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code as required by MN Statute 144G.45 Subd(a)(2). This had the potential to directly affect all residents, visitors, and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”
Show all 24
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation. This has the potential to directly affect the health, safety, and well-being of all residents and staff. [...]”
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 [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide all required content on the fire safety and evacuation plan, evacuation drills, and the minimum required training of staff on fire safety and evacuation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide all required content on the fire safety and evacuation plan, evacuation drills, and the minimum required training of staff on fire safety and evacuation. This has the potential to directly affect the safety of staff and all residents receiving care. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 950: 144.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract included designation of representatives in writing with the required statutory language for five of five residents (R3, R2, R4, R6, R7) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract included designation of representatives in writing with the required statutory language for five of five residents (R3, R2, R4, R6, R7) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Before or at the time of execution of an assisted living contract, an assisted living facility must offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing in the contract and must provide the following verbatim notice on a [...]”
- Tag 970: 144.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident for five of five residents (R3, R2, R4, R6, R7) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- Tag 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 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 to include all required content was completed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F) with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency to include all required content was completed for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · 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 two of two employees(unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G) with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on 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 two of two employees(unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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 employees received orientation to include all required content for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G) with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to include all required content for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F and ULP-G) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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 1480: 144G.63 Subd. 3 Orientation to resident Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure staff providing assisted living services were oriented to each individual resident and the services to be provided for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H) with employee records
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff providing assisted living services were oriented to each individual resident and the services to be provided for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-H) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Staff providing assisted living services must be oriented specifically to each individual resident and the services to be provided. This orientation may be provided in person, orally, in writing, or electronically.”
- Tag 1540: 144G.64 (a) TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct-care staff completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame for two of three employees (registered nurse (RN)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F), with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct-care staff completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame for two of three employees (registered nurse (RN)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F), with employee records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(3) for assisted living facilities with dementia care, direct-care employees must have completed at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 80 working hours of the employment start date. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed an ongoing resident reassessment that did not exceed 90 days as required for one of five residents (R6) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed an ongoing resident reassessment that did not exceed 90 days as required for one of five residents (R6) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) 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 resident service plan included the required content for five of five residents (R3, R2, R4, R6, R7) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident service plan included the required content for five of five residents (R3, R2, R4, R6, R7) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”
- Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure prior to delegating nursing tasks, the unlicensed personnel (ULP) were trained in the proper methods to perform the task or procedure for each resident and were able to demonstrate the ability to competently follow the procedure to perform the tasks for one of two employees (ULP-G) with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure prior to delegating nursing tasks, the unlicensed personnel (ULP) were trained in the proper methods to perform the task or procedure for each resident and were able to demonstrate the ability to competently follow the procedure to perform the tasks for one of two employees (ULP-G) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered per manufacturers recommendations for two of four residents (R4, R7) and failed to ensure prescriber orders were transcribed as ordered for one of four residents (R8) observed for medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered per manufacturers recommendations for two of four residents (R4, R7) and failed to ensure prescriber orders were transcribed as ordered for one of four residents (R8) observed for medication administration. [...]”
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 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to store all prescription medications according to the manufacturers' directions.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all prescription medications according to the manufacturers' directions. This had the potential to affect all eight (8) residents receiving refrigerated medications. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained including the opened date for time sensitive medication storage for two of five residents (R2, R7) with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained including the opened date for time sensitive medication storage for two of five residents (R2, R7) with record reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individual treatment management plan to include all required content for two of four residents (R3, R7) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individual treatment management plan to include all required content for two of four residents (R3, R7) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 1950: 144G.72 Subd. 4 Administration of treatments and therapy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure, prior to delegating nursing tasks, the registered nurse (RN) trained the unlicensed personnel (ULP) in the proper methods to perform the task or procedure for each resident and failed to ensure the ULP demonstrated the ability to competently follow the procedure to perform the tasks for one of two employees (ULP-G) with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure, prior to delegating nursing tasks, the registered nurse (RN) trained the unlicensed personnel (ULP) in the proper methods to perform the task or procedure for each resident and failed to ensure the ULP demonstrated the ability to competently follow the procedure to perform the tasks for one of two employees (ULP-G) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Ordered or prescribed treatments or therapies must be administered by a nurse, physician, or other licensed health professional authorized to perform the treatment or therapy, or may be delegated or assigned to unlicensed personnel by the licensed health [...]”
- Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a complete facility hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment (HVA) plan to identify both the hazard vulnerabilities and the mitigations on and around the property.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a complete facility hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment (HVA) plan to identify both the hazard vulnerabilities and the mitigations on and around the property. The hazards identified in the HVA plan must be mitigated to protect the residents from harm. This has the potential to directly affect all memory care residents receiving assisted living services and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 Appropriate care and services Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: IMMEDIATE On March 24, 2022, the immediacy was removed, scope and level of noncompliance remains the same
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards with bed rails for three of three residents (R6, R2, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards with bed rails for three of three residents (R6, R2, R3) with records reviewed. This resulted in an immediate correction order on March 23, 2022, at 5:17 p.m. [...]”
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.”
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
- Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control (re-issued) Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- January 16, 2024 · report HL360217507M
Details
Survey completed November 27, 2023: 6 correction orders
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to submit a report within 24 hours to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for two of two residents (R1 and R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to submit a report within 24 hours to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for two of two residents (R1 and R2). The licensee failed to submit a MAARC report for R1, when R1 was not provided the medication Rivaroxaban (blood thinner) which resulted in R1 developing blood clots. In addition, the licensee failed to submit a MAARC report for R2, when R2 had multiple falls which resulted in injuries. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- Tag 720: 144G.43 Subd. 2 Access to records Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide requested records during a complaint investigation for two of two residents (R1 and R2) and for one of one employee, registered nurse (RN)-F reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide requested records during a complaint investigation for two of two residents (R1 and R2) and for one of one employee, registered nurse (RN)-F reviewed. This failure had the potential to affect the health, safety, and welfare of all the residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility must ensure that the appropriate records are readily available to employees and contractors authorized to access the records. Resident records must be maintained in a manner that allows for timely access, printing, or transmission of the records. [...]”
- Tag 750: 144G.43 Subd. 5 Record retention Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain resident records for at least five years for two of two residents (R1 and R2) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to maintain resident records for at least five years for two of two residents (R1 and R2) reviewed. 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “Following the resident's discharge or termination of services, an assisted living facility must retain a resident's record for at least five years or as otherwise required by state or federal regulations. [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure each medication was available and administered as prescribed for one of one resident's (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure each medication was available and administered as prescribed for one of one resident's (R1) reviewed. The facility failed to administer R1's scheduled blood thinner medication, which caused R1 to have pulmonary embolisms in both lungs and blood clots in both legs. [...]”
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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for one of one residents (R2) with records 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 and medical, or nursing standards for one of one residents (R2) with records reviewed. The licensee failed to reassess and develop new interventions following falls with injury to prevent future falls and ensure the health and safety of R2. R2 suffered pelvic fractures due to the falls. [...]”
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 two of two resident reviewed (R1 and R2) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two resident reviewed (R1 and 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.”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
- January 16, 2024 · report HL360217667M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when the facility failed to follow the resident's plan of care, which resulted in the resident having falls with injuries over the course of three weeks, hospitalizations, a decline in health and was not able to return to the facility.”
“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 resident sustained an unspecified number of falls over the course of one month, resulting in injuries and hospitalizations. The facility failed to provide documentation to assist in the investigation including incident reports, assessments, progress notes, care plans and/or service plans for the resident. There was no evidence the facility reassessed the resident following falls with injuries and implemented interventions to ensure the resident's safety and prevent future falls. The facility failed to provide accurate and complete staff contact information for previous staff so it could not be determined which staff were assisting the resident when the falls/injuries occurred. An equal opportunity employer.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility sent the resident to the hospital.”
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 November 27, 2023: 6 correction orders
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to submit a report within 24 hours to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for two of two residents (R1 and R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to submit a report within 24 hours to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for two of two residents (R1 and R2). The licensee failed to submit a MAARC report for R1, when R1 was not provided the medication Rivaroxaban (blood thinner) which resulted in R1 developing blood clots. In addition, the licensee failed to submit a MAARC report for R2, when R2 had multiple falls which resulted in injuries. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- Tag 720: 144G.43 Subd. 2 Access to records Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide requested records during a complaint investigation for two of two residents (R1 and R2) and for one of one employee, registered nurse (RN)-F reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide requested records during a complaint investigation for two of two residents (R1 and R2) and for one of one employee, registered nurse (RN)-F reviewed. This failure had the potential to affect the health, safety, and welfare of all the residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “The facility must ensure that the appropriate records are readily available to employees and contractors authorized to access the records. Resident records must be maintained in a manner that allows for timely access, printing, or transmission of the records. [...]”
- Tag 750: 144G.43 Subd. 5 Record retention Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain resident records for at least five years for two of two residents (R1 and R2) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to maintain resident records for at least five years for two of two residents (R1 and R2) reviewed. 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “Following the resident's discharge or termination of services, an assisted living facility must retain a resident's record for at least five years or as otherwise required by state or federal regulations. [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure each medication was available and administered as prescribed for one of one resident's (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure each medication was available and administered as prescribed for one of one resident's (R1) reviewed. The facility failed to administer R1's scheduled blood thinner medication, which caused R1 to have pulmonary embolisms in both lungs and blood clots in both legs. [...]”
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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for one of one residents (R2) with records 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 and medical, or nursing standards for one of one residents (R2) with records reviewed. The licensee failed to reassess and develop new interventions following falls with injury to prevent future falls and ensure the health and safety of R2. R2 suffered pelvic fractures due to the falls. [...]”
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 two of two resident reviewed (R1 and R2) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two resident reviewed (R1 and 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.”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
- February 23, 2023 · report HL360213705M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “Alleged perpetrator (AP)1 and AP2 abused a resident when they held the resident down and forced a wanderguard alarm bracelet (a device that notified staff when a resident was out of a certain area) onto the resident's wrist, leaving bruises.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident clearly recalled staff restraining her to place a wanderguard alarm bracelet on her wrist, even though the resident told them no. The resident's family member stated the staff involved told her an administrative staff directed staff to hold the resident to get the wanderguard on. The resident's legal representative (who held power of attorney) stated the administrative staff verified she told staff to place the wanderguard. The nurse at the facility at the time of the incident stated the administrative staff directed staff to restrain the resident. The facility failed to provide documentation to assist in the investigation, such as contact information of the staff involved in the restraint, names of An equal opportunity employer. [...]”
Action taken by facility: “The facility changed the code to the exit door for the locked memory care unit.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed February 6, 2023: 5 correction orders
- Tag 330: 144G.30 Subd. 4 Information provided by facility Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to cooperate with a Minnesota Department of Health Office of Health Facility Complaints (OHFC) investigation when they failed to provide accurate and truthful information and failed to provide requested documentation for one of one resident (R1), reviewed for maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to cooperate with a Minnesota Department of Health Office of Health Facility Complaints (OHFC) investigation when they failed to provide accurate and truthful information and failed to provide requested documentation for one of one resident (R1), reviewed for maltreatment. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility shall provide accurate and truthful information to the department during a survey, investigation, or other licensing activities. [...]”
- Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to immediately report to the state agency suspected maltreatment of one of one residents (R1) reviewed for restraints.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to immediately report to the state agency suspected maltreatment of one of one residents (R1) reviewed for restraints. Staff held R1 down to forcefully place a wanderguard (an alarm to notify staff when R1 left the locked memory care unit) on R1's wrist against R1's wishes. The licensee did not file a report with the state agency. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”
- 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 appropriate care and service for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for maltreatment when R1 had several incidents of independently leaving the locked memory care unit.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and service for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for maltreatment when R1 had several incidents of independently leaving the locked memory care unit. The licensee failed to reassess and implement an individualized abuse prevention plan (IAPP) and failed to assess R1's needs and implement an up-to-date service place subject to accepted health care standards. [...]”
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 residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one residents 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.”
- Tag 3000: 626.557 Subd. 3 Timing of report Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to follow their policy to immediately report an incident of suspected abuse of one of one residents (R1), reviewed for restraints, when staff held a R1 down, forced placement of a wanderguard alarm bracelet on R1's wrist which gave R1 a bruise.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to follow their policy to immediately report an incident of suspected abuse of one of one residents (R1), reviewed for restraints, when staff held a R1 down, forced placement of a wanderguard alarm bracelet on R1's wrist which gave R1 a bruise. The licensee did not file a report with the state agency. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A mandated reporter who has reason to believe that a vulnerable adult is being or has been maltreated, or who has knowledge that a vulnerable adult has sustained a physical injury which is not reasonably explained shall immediately report the information [...]”
- Tag 330: 144G.30 Subd. 4 Information provided by facility Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) Days
Inconclusive investigations (4)
- May 2, 2024 · report HL360219246M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident during a shower. The resident slipped, went to the hospital and suffered a fractured tibia.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. During an overnight shift the resident developed knee pain during a shower. AP1 reported the resident had knee pain because she slipped in the shower but did not fall because she assisted AP2 with the transfer. AP1 also reported the resident had a "bad knee" with previous complaints of knee pain. The day shift unlicensed personnel (ULP) assisted AP1 with transferring the resident from the shower back to her bed. The ULP found it unusual to see the resident sitting in the shower chair when she normally stood during a shower and stated the resident did not have knee pain prior to the incident. AP2 failed to respond to a subpoena for interview. The facility failed to interview AP2 on the internal investigation document. The nurse reported AP2 told her she did not go into the resident's room.”
Action taken by facility: “An internal investigation was conducted.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed April 2, 2024: no correction orders issued.
- October 3, 2022 · report HL36021007M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. There was a lack of evidence to support the AP yelled at the resident making the statement: "shut-up or I will slap the shit out of you" after the resident, alleged, made a racial comment towards the AP.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
“There was a lack of evidence to support the AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. There was a lack of evidence to support the AP was responsible for the maltreatment. Facility administrative nursing staff that interviewed the AP during a facility investigation, stated when the AP was asked if he told the resident to: "shut up or I will slap the shit out of you", he told the administrative nursing staff: "She [resident] should know better" then, threw his keys on the desk, walked out of the facility and did not return. Two other unlicensed personnel heard the An equal opportunity employer. AP swear at the resident at the time of the incident and one of the unlicensed personnel heard the AP make the comment to the resident. The facility was unable to locate the facility internal investigation that was allegedly completed after the incident.”
Action taken by facility: “The AP is no longer employed at the facility. The facility conducted additional, mandatory, dementia training, including six to eight hours of hands-on dementia training, with all staff members.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed June 23, 2022: no correction orders issued.
- October 3, 2022 · report HL36021009M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The resident was neglected when the AP placed the resident's call light pendent out of reach after the resident had turned on the call light pendent multiple times.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. There was a lack of evidence to support that the resident's call light pendent was taken away from the resident. The resident's baseline behavior consisted of the resident turning on his call light pendent numerous times. One document indicated unlicensed personnel heard the resident's call light pendent was taken away because the resident used it too much, but the document lacked a date, time and who had taken the call light pendent away. An equal opportunity employer.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility investigated the incident. The AP is no longer employed at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed June 23, 2022: no correction orders issued.
- October 3, 2022 · report HL36021012M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “It is alleged neglect occurred when the AP [unknown] yelled at the resident while cleansing the resident's perineal area with alcohol wipes while the resident was screaming out.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. There was a lack of evidence to support the resident was yelled at by the AP while the AP was cleansing the resident's perineal with an alcohol wipe. A recorded video of the incident; however, this video did not have a clear visual of which wipes were used on the resident or who the AP was. A screen shot of a recorded video indicated alcohol wipes were located in the resident's room near the area where incontinent products were stored, but the screenshot did not have a clear visual as to whether the wipes were open and if the wipes had been used to cleanse the resident's perineal area. An equal opportunity employer.”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken. "Inconclusive" means there is less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur. Neglect: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 17 "Neglect" means: (a) The failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to, food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is: [...]”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed June 23, 2022: no correction orders issued.
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- December 17, 2025 · report HL360216722M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when the resident did not receive medication according to physician orders, resulting in dehydration and passing away.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. The pharmacy delivered a bag of medications to the facility, and the AP set them down on the counter in the office area. A different unlicensed staff member picked up the bag of medications and brought them to the resident. The resident was independent with medication administration. The medication in the bag, morphine (narcotic pain medication), belonged to another resident. The resident took five pills of morphine over three days. The resident had a decline in health, but it was not related to morphine.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility provided education to facility staff instructing them not to accept medications for residents that do not receive medication administration services from the facility. The facility notified the pharmacy and requested that they do not deliver medications past 10:00 p.m. Audits were completed of the office area to ensure no medications were left out on the counter.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed November 12, 2025: 2 correction orders
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct a comprehensive reassessment for one of one resident (R2) with a change in condition.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to conduct a comprehensive reassessment for one of one resident (R2) with a change in condition. Over approximately one month, R2's mobility declined to being unable to walk, required a mechanical lift, experience an infection and developed skin wounds. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R2) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (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.”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
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”
Level 4: “a violation harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury or death, or a violation that was likely to lead to serious injury 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 120 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 GENTLE TOUCH HEALTH INITIATIVES, LLC
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 426115
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-07-14
- Licensed capacity
- 120
- Licensee
- GENTLE TOUCH HEALTH INITIATIVES, LLC
- County
- Ramsey County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Megan Beck
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 4.5 mi, nursing home 0.7 mi, pharmacy 1.0 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview St John'S Hospital, Maplewood. 4.5 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- The Estates at Roseville LLC, Roseville. 0.7 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Firstat Nursing Services, Little Canada. 1.2 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.0 mile away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55113 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fmc Dialysis - Roseville, Roseville, 1.5 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Larpenteur Ave Dialysis, Roseville, 2.0 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Davita Arden Hills Dialysis Unit, Arden Hills, 2.9 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 24 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55113.
Presbyterian Homes Hospice Inc, office in Roseville, 1.6 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Ecumen Hospice, office in Shoreview, 2.2 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Interim Healthcare Of The Twin Cities, Inc., office in Roseville, 2.6 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Steven Lawler, MD, Minneapolis. 4.5 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 moderate; 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
- Outside the high and moderate risk flood areas on FEMA's flood map (Zone X, minimal flood hazard, or not studied). (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively moderate. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively high, 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.
- The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
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.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here very low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | Could not read the site |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does The Preserve of Roseville provide?
The Preserve of Roseville is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Roseville, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 120 residents.
Does Lilisity rate The Preserve of Roseville?
No. We publish state licensing details for The Preserve of Roseville 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 The Preserve of Roseville 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. The Preserve of Roseville does not publish its prices.
How do I contact The Preserve of Roseville?
Use The Preserve of Roseville's website, preserveofroseville.com, or visit at 2600 Dale Street North, Roseville, MN 55113.
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