Vitality Living of Sebeka

Survey completed July 2, 2024: 2 correction orders

• Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”

  Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”

• Tag 950: 144G.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to include the required verbatim notice to designate a representative in the assisted living contract for one of one resident (R2).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to include the required verbatim notice to designate a representative in the assisted living contract for one of one resident (R2). [...]”

  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 [...]”

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

Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when staff failed to follow the prescribed care plan.”

“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. There was not a preponderance of evidence that neglect occurred. The resident's care was managed by outside agency hospice staff, and the plan of care was implemented by the facility.”

Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”

Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”

Survey completed January 27, 2026: 2 correction orders

• Tag 900: 144G.50 Subdivision 1 Contract required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for two of two residents.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for two of two residents. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a [...]”

  Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility may not offer or provide housing or assisted living services to any individual unless it has executed a written contract with the resident. [...]”

• Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered per prescriber orders for one of one residents (R1) reviewed.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered per prescriber orders for one of one residents (R1) reviewed. R1 had several doses of prescribed medications not given due to not being in stock. The facility failed to follow up on the 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. [...]”