Minnesota ›Lakefield

Colonial Manor Nursing Home

403 Colonial Avenue, Lakefield, MN 56150 · Jackson County · 37 certified beds · avg 24 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1991 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
6.30
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (32)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months.
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Jan 29, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay).
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Nov 21, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Nov 21, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Nov 21, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Nov 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offWhen a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Oct 28, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Jul 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Jul 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Jul 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint
Oct 19, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Oct 19, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 14).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202320F
2024160F
2026140F

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityMinnesota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)6.304.833.95top 6% in Minnesota; top 3% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.231.220.69top 40% in Minnesota; top 9% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing5.264.273.50top 9% in Minnesota; top 5% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.440.690.48bottom 27% in Minnesota; top 41% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)60.542.245.8bottom 12% in Minnesota; bottom 16% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)50.038.642.9bottom 32% in Minnesota; bottom 39% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 6.37, RN 1.24, weekend 5.31. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
GR Partner Companies, INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2018
Gruber, KariIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest25%01/01/2018
Gruber, NathanIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest25%01/01/2018
Rocheleau, DeanIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest25%01/01/2018
Rocheleau, PaulaIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest25%01/01/2018
Alvarado, MeganIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2024
Alvarado, MeganIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2024
Giese, SharonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/14/2024
Giese, SharonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/14/2024
GR Partner Companies, INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2018
Gruber, KariIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2009
Gruber, KariIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2009
Gruber, KariIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2009
Gruber, NathanIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2009
Gruber, NathanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2018
Kamstra, LeeIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2025
Kamstra, LeeIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2025
Partners Senior Living Options LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2017
Ritter, CraigIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2018
Ritter, CraigIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2018

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Good Samaritan Society - Jackson9.4 miJackson, MN★★★★☆3/5
Good Samaritan Society - Windom12.4 miWindom, MN★☆☆☆☆1/5
Accura Healthcare of Spirit Lake18.4 miSpirit Lake, IA★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Lakefield →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245572.