Assisted Living and Memory Care
Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living
35625 Ostlund Avenue, Crosslake, MN 56442 · Map
Licensed for 112 residents · WHITEFISH AT THE LAKES SENIOR LIVING
Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Crosslake, Minnesota. It is licensed for 112 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
Care and services
From the community’s website
What Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Nurse on site: 24 hours a day.
We offer 24/7 nurse coverage for residents needing extra assistance with daily living.
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026) - Provides transportation.
Assisted Living includes home-style meals, medication management, bathing and dressing assistance, housekeeping, laundry, and transportation to appointments.
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026) - 3 meals a day.
To nurture healthy habits and maintain nutrition, our memory care residents enjoy three chef-prepared meals each day, plus other snacks.
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026) - Apartment types named: studio, two-bedroom.
Our private studio, 1- or 2-bedroom apartments are thoughtfully designed for comfort and convenience.
(page, checked Oct 15, 2026)
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, 112 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 424823, current license dated Aug 6, 2025. Licensee WHITEFISH AT THE LAKES SENIOR LIVING.
Nearest emergency room
15.0 miles
Cuyuna Regional Medical Center, rated 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living this community | 112 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Golden Horizons | 1.2 mi | 35 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated |
| Caring Hearts Senior Community | 11.0 mi | 18 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Shiloh Assisted Living | 11.3 mi | 70 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Brookside Assisted Living | 13.7 mi | 15 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- March 12, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (March 12, 2025, state report M2EE11)
MDH: “On March 10, 2025, through March 12, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed March 12, 2025: 15 correction orders
- Tag 100: 144G.10 Subdivision 1 License required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to demonstrate legal responsibility for the control and operation of the facility when the licensee allowed use of facility space by a third party vendor to provide beautician services to outside community members.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to demonstrate legal responsibility for the control and operation of the facility when the licensee allowed use of facility space by a third party vendor to provide beautician services to outside community members. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a)(1)Beginning August 1, 2021, no assisted living facility may operate in Minnesota unless it is licensed under this chapter. [...]”
- Tag 500: 144G.41 Subd. 2 Policies and procedures Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to show they had met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who were in charge of the day-to-day operations, had developed and implemented current policies and procedures, as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to show they had met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who were in charge of the day-to-day operations, had developed and implemented current policies and procedures, as required. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must have policies and procedures in place to address the following and keep them current: (1) requirements in section 626.557, reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults; (2) conducting and handling background studies on [...]”
- 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 to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel/ULP-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel/ULP-D). [...]”
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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) 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 comply with the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) 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
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 affect a limited number of 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 [...]”
Show all 15
- Tag 970: 144G.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · 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 facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident.
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. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- 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 service plan included the correct required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the correct required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). [...]”
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 1690: 144G.71 Subdivision 1 Medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written medication management policies and procedures under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written medication management policies and procedures under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) This section applies only to assisted living facilities that provide medication management services. [...]”
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of three residents (R2). 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 one [...]”
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 1790: 144G.71 Subd. 10 Medication management for residents who will Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed comprehensive written procedures for the unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing medications for residents having unplanned time away when the licensed nurse was not available.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed comprehensive written procedures for the unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing medications for residents having unplanned time away when the licensed nurse was not available. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) for unplanned time away, when the pharmacy is not able to provide the medications, a licensed nurse or unlicensed personnel shall provide medications in amounts and dosages needed for the length of the anticipated absence, not to exceed seven calendar [...]”
- 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 date time sensitive medications with a date when opened for one of two residents time sensitive medications (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to date time sensitive medications with a date when opened for one of two residents time sensitive medications (R1). [...]”
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 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medications as required for one of one resident (R5) upon discharge.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medications as required for one of one resident (R5) upon discharge. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1930: 144G.72 Subd. 2 Policies and procedures Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written treatment management policies and
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and maintain current written treatment management policies and procedures under the supervision and direction of a registered nurse (RN). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility that provides treatment and therapy management services must develop, implement, and maintain up-to-date written treatment or therapy management policies and procedures. [...]”
- Tag 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation for two of two residents (R1, R2) who resided in an assisted living with dementia care facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation for two of two residents (R1, R2) who resided in an assisted living with dementia care facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D followed appropriate medication administration procedures.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D followed appropriate medication administration procedures. [...]”
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.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- September 28, 2022: report I3P711 · 8 correction orders
Details
Survey completed September 28, 2022: 8 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) 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 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 had the potential to affect all three residents in the Assisted Living facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed for one of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-C) providing personal cares.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed for one of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-C) providing personal cares. This had the potential to affect all eighty-six (86) 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 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) 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 provide the required evacuation drill frequency.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on document review and interview, the licensee failed to provide the required evacuation drill frequency. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- 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 notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of resident relocation within four days for one of one resident (R3) with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of resident relocation within four days for one of one resident (R3) with record reviewed. [...]”
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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive re-assessment following a change of condition for one of one resident (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure service plans included all the required content for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans included all the required content for one of one resident (R2). 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 one or a [...]”
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 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 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 provide a hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment that included hazards identified on and around the property.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on document review and interview, the licensee failed to provide a hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment that included hazards identified on and around the property. This had the potential to directly affect all residents 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 2410: 144G.91 Subd. 13 Personal and treatment privacy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure privacy was maintained for one of one resident (R6) observed during medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure privacy was maintained for one of one resident (R6) observed during medication administration. 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: “(a) Residents have the right to consideration of their privacy, individuality, and cultural identity as related to their social, religious, and psychological well-being. [...]”
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- February 29, 2024 · report HL357508342C
Details
Survey completed February 29, 2024: 3 correction orders
- Tag 2350: 144G.91 Subd. 7 Courteous treatment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure residents were treated with courtesy and respect for one of one residents (R2) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure residents were treated with courtesy and respect for one of one residents (R2) reviewed. The licensee failed to honor the financially responsible party's choice on utilizing a provider of their choosing and failed to inform the financially responsible party of changes made to the resident's charges. [...]”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect, and to have the resident's property treated with respect”
- Tag 2430: 144G.91 Subd. 15 Confidentiality of records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure resident's personal health and medical information was kept private for one of one residents (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure resident's personal health and medical information was kept private for one of one residents (R1) reviewed. The resident's protected health information was disclosed to an unauthorized pharmacy without the resident or responsible party's consent and the resident's health insurance was billed for medications that were not current and were also not received. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to have personal, financial, health, and medical information kept private, to approve or refuse release of information to any outside party, and to be advised of the assisted living facility's policies and procedures regarding [...]”
- Tag 2480: 144G.91 Subd. 20 Grievances and inquiries Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to respond to grievances of one of one resident (R1) reviewed for grievances.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to respond to grievances of one of one resident (R1) reviewed for grievances. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at an isolated scope (when 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to make and receive a timely response to a complaint or inquiry, without limitation. [...]”
- Tag 2350: 144G.91 Subd. 7 Courteous treatment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- May 7, 2026 · report HL357502841M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected Resident #1 and Resident #2 when Resident #1 touched Resident #2's genitals as indicated by video surveillance.”
“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. While it was true Resident #1 had document instances of sexually inappropriate interactions towards other residents, the investigation did not identify an instance(s) consistent with the allegation.”
Action taken by facility: “None.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action at this time.”
Survey completed April 21, 2026: no correction orders issued.
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- August 24, 2026 · report HL357503527M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), a facility staff member, abused the resident when the AP restrained the resident and the AP had the resident arrested.”
“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: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was not substantiated. The AP followed interventions and placed herself between two residents to prevent an altercation. A verbal exchange began between the resident and another resident when he sat uninvited at a table. Unlicensed staff cleaning up the dining area were unable to redirect the resident and the AP was summoned to the memory care unit. The AP intervened, turned the resident's dining room chair forty-five degrees away from the second resident to de-escalate and prevent a physical altercation. When the AP stepped between the residents and turned the chair, the resident grabbed the groin region of the AP. The resident's hand was moved away by the AP without restraint or injury to the resident. The resident was unable to be redirected, and law enforcement was called. [...]”
Action taken by facility: “The facility implemented interventions and collaborated with outside agencies to address the resident's needs.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed July 27, 2026: 1 correction order
- Tag 1110: 144G.55 Subdivision 1 Duties of facility Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a coordinated move during a facility initiated discharge for one of one residents (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to ensure a coordinated move during a facility initiated discharge for one of one residents (R1) reviewed. R1 was relocated to an emergency room and representatives had not been notified even though representatives had phoned the facility and spoke with two facility staff. The facility declined to accept the resident back causing R1 to be housed at a jail facility, and an emergency room. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) If a facility terminates an assisted living contract, reduces services to the extent that a resident needs to move or obtain a new service provider or the facility has its license restricted under section 144G.20, or the facility conducts a planned [...]”
- Tag 1110: 144G.55 Subdivision 1 Duties of facility Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
- May 7, 2026 · report HL357502120M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “Two residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) were neglected when the facility failed to provide supervision resulting in physical altercations between resident #1 and resident #2.”
“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. Although there were instances when resident #1 and resident #2 had altercations, the facility took appropriate steps to address these times and to reduce the risk of recurrence. Resident records reviewed, and staff interviewed indicated the residents plan of care and individualized abuse prevention plans were followed at the time of the incidents. Caregivers responded to the resident-to-resident altercations promptly, separated the residents involved to ensure safety, called 911, assessed the residents for injuries, and implemented interventions to help prevent recurrence.”
Action taken by facility: “Facility caregivers responded to the incidents, separated the residents, called 911, and reported the incident. The residents were assessed for injuries and took steps to reduce the risk in the future for both residents.”
Action taken by MDH: “No action was taken at this time.”
Survey completed April 21, 2026: no correction orders issued.
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”
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 112 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 WHITEFISH AT THE LAKES SENIOR LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 424823
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-08-06
- Licensed capacity
- 112
- Licensee
- WHITEFISH AT THE LAKES SENIOR LIVING
- County
- Crow Wing County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Jordan Ryan
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 15.0 mi, nursing home 14.7 mi, pharmacy 11.3 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Cuyuna Regional Medical Center, Crosby. 15.0 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Good Samaritan Society - Pine River, Pine River. 14.7 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Good Samaritan Home Health, Nisswa. 14.9 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Lakes Area Pharmacies. 11.3 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56442 as rural (rural area).
- Hospice
- 6 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56442.
Good Samaritan Society Hospice, office in Nisswa, 14.9 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Princeton. 80.8 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 very high, wildfire relatively low, tornado relatively moderate, 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 current license dates from 2025. 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 relatively 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 | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living provide?
Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Crosslake, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 112 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living 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 Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living 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. Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living?
Use Whitefish at the Lakes Sr Living's website, whitefishatthelakes.com, or visit at 35625 Ostlund Avenue, Crosslake, MN 56442.
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