Assisted Living and Memory Care
Whispering Oak Place
903 Calverly Court, Ellendale, MN 56026 · Map
Licensed for 48 residents · WHISPERING OAK PLACE
Whispering Oak Place is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Ellendale, Minnesota. It is licensed for 48 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, 48 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424905, current license dated Apr 28, 2026. Licensee WHISPERING OAK PLACE.
Nearest emergency room
13.3 miles
Owatonna 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whispering Oak Place this community | 48 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Prairie Senior Cottages of New | 9.3 mi | 18 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Good Samaritan Society Albert | 12.4 mi | 86 | $2,577/mo | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Heather Haus | 12.6 mi | 23 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| American Eagle Owatonna (Assisted Living) | 13.5 mi | 20 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- July 24, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 1
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 2 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 1 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (July 24, 2024, state report HSS411)
MDH: “On July 22, 2024, through July 24, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed July 24, 2024: 11 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed as required, potentially affecting the licensee's residents, staff, and any visitors of the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed as required, potentially affecting the licensee's residents, staff, and any visitors of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control during treatments and medication administration for one of three unlicensed personnel (ULP-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control during treatments and medication administration for one of three unlicensed personnel (ULP-F). [...]”
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 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee 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 contained the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid employee, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 820: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (g) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(g) Existing construction or elements, including assisted living facilities that were registered as housing with services establishments under chapter 144D prior to August 1, 2021, shall be permitted to continue in use provided such use does not constitute a [...]”
Show all 11
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content, to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative, for an emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content, to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative, for an emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1). In addition, the licensee failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the relocation within four days as required. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 1540: 144G.64 (a) TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure staff completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F). [...]”
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 complete a comprehensive assessment every 90 days for one of three residents (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to complete a comprehensive assessment every 90 days for one of three residents (R5). In addition, the licensee failed to complete a smoking assessment for one of one resident (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the accurate content for one of three residents (R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the accurate content for one of three residents (R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for the licensee's one resident (R5) receiving insulin administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for the licensee's one resident (R5) receiving insulin 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 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to follow delegated procedures for the licensee's one resident (R5) receiving insulin administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to follow delegated procedures for the licensee's one resident (R5) receiving insulin administration. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- June 8, 2026 · report HL305992801M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) an unlicensed staff neglected the resident when the resident had increasing, untreated pain for eight hours.”
“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 reported to the AP multiple times he had stomach and back pain, which was new for the resident. The AP did not notify the nurse or treat the residents pain during the AP's 8 hour shift. When the morning staff arrived they assessed the resident and contacted 911. When emergency medical services arrived, the resident passed away. The residents death certificate indicated the residents cause of death was heart failure (a chronic condition where the heart muscle is too weak or stiff to pump blood efficiently). The AP, an unlicensed staff, was not trained by the facility on managing residents pain, recognizing a change of condition, and when to notify the nurse.”
Action taken by facility: “Emergency medical services were called, and the facility did an internal investigation.”
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 April 28, 2026: 1 correction order
- 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.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Inconclusive investigations (2)
- March 12, 2025 · report HL305997584M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. The AP, who was an unlicensed caregiver, and the resident had different accounts of their interactions that night and there were no witnesses to the incident.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility suspended the AP and conducted an internal investigation. The facility notified the resident's provider and reported the incident to law enforcement.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed February 19, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- February 27, 2025 · report HL305997324M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse occurred was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse occurred inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse occurred was inconclusive. While it was true the interaction between the AP and resident likely caused a bruise on the resident's arm, it was in the context of the resident swinging to hit the AP. The AP then walked the resident to her apartment while holding her arm in an effort to calm her down.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility suspended the employee and conducted an internal investigation of the incident. The AP was given verbal coaching and retraining on handling workplace situations and returned to work at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No action at this time.”
Survey completed February 19, 2025: no correction orders issued.
Unsubstantiated investigations (1)
- January 30, 2024 · report HL305996507M
Details
Allegation, as written: “Allegation #1: The facility abused the resident when multiple bruises were discovered on the resident's arms and legs. Allegation #2: The facility neglected the resident when the resident was found lying in bed and soiled on several occasions. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted resident family member and the hospice agency. The investigation included review of facility progress notes, incident reports, service plan, medications, treatments, and hospice records. [...]”
“Allegation #1: The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “Allegation #1: The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. Although the resident presented with multiple bruising, both facility staff and family member stated the resident's skin was fragile along with her long history of bruising that resident had experienced before entering the facility.”
Action taken by facility: “No action required.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed December 7, 2023: no correction orders issued.
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”
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 48 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 WHISPERING OAK PLACE
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 424905
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-04-28
- Licensed capacity
- 48
- Licensee
- WHISPERING OAK PLACE
- County
- Steele County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Brenda Weitzel
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 13.3 mi, nursing home 9.1 mi, pharmacy 14.7 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Owatonna Hospital, Owatonna. 13.3 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars. Location approximate.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- New Richland Care Center, New Richland. 9.1 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Steele County Phns, Owatonna. 15.3 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walmart Pharmacy. 14.7 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56026 as rural (rural area).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Mayo Dialysis - Owatonna, Owatonna, 13.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars)
- Hospice
- 6 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56026.
St Croix Hospice, office in Albert Lea, 13.6 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Mayo Clinic Health System-Southeast Minnesota Region, Austin. 21.7 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 moderate, wildfire very low, tornado very high, heat wave relatively low, 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 state recorded a finding in June 2026. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- 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?
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 | No plain statements of services found |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Whispering Oak Place provide?
Whispering Oak Place is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Ellendale, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 48 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Whispering Oak Place?
No. We publish state licensing details for Whispering Oak Place 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 Whispering Oak Place 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. Whispering Oak Place does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Whispering Oak Place?
Use Whispering Oak Place's website, whisperingoakplace.com, or visit at 903 Calverly Court, Ellendale, MN 56026.
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