How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Edenbrook of Edina
6200 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55423 (opens Google Maps) · Hennepin County · (952) 925-8500· 80 certified beds · avg 68 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1985 · 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 →
Part of chain: EDEN SENIOR CARE (21 facilities, chain avg rating 2.6★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 22, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 9, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.84
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 9, 2026 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 9, 2026 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Feb 5, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. F-0554
The 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. F-0582
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. F-0605
View all 29 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Jan 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0582 |
| Jan 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605 |
| Jan 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint · F-0867 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0609 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0657 |
| Dec 31, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Dec 31, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Dec 31, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · from a complaint · F-0676 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Oct 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Oct 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Aug 5, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jun 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jun 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0725 |
| Jun 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0609 |
| Jun 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557 |
| Dec 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Dec 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Dec 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Dec 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740 |
| Dec 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Dec 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770 |
| Dec 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 14 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMinnesota averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.84
Minnesota average: 4.83
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.06
Minnesota average: 1.22
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.44
Minnesota average: 4.27
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Minnesota avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.84 | 4.83 | 3.95 | bottom 9% in Minnesota; top 47% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.06 | 1.22 | 0.69 | bottom 42% in Minnesota; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.44 | 4.27 | 3.50 | bottom 12% in Minnesota; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.84 | 0.69 | 0.48 | top 24% in Minnesota; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.3 | 42.2 | 45.8 | top 45% in Minnesota; top 32% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 42.1 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 40% in Minnesota; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 4.01, RN 1.11, weekend 3.59.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.01 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Edenbrook of Edina. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feinstein, Dan | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 15% | 01/06/2017 |
| Polstein, Mordechai | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 20% | 01/06/2017 |
| Stesel, Maxim | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 55% | 01/06/2017 |
| Doughty, John | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2017 |
| Polstein, Mordechai | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/06/2017 |
| Rice, Pamela | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2017 |
| Stesel, Maxim | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/06/2017 |
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Eden Senior Care — 21 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Edenbrook of Rochester — Rochester, MN · overall 2/5
- Edenbrook of St Cloud — Saint Cloud, MN · overall 3/5
- Edenbrook Rochester West — Rochester, MN · overall 2/5
- Fair Oaks Lodge — Wadena, MN · overall 2/5
- Edenbrook at Hampton — Wilkes Barre, PA · overall 3/5
- Edenbrook North — Williamsport, PA · overall 2/5
- Edenbrook of Yeadon — Yeadon, PA · overall 2/5abuse
- Edenbrook on Second Ave — Kingston, PA · overall 1/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 20 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
- "Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How does your quality committee work, and can you give an example of a problem it recently identified and fixed?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Minnesota midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 38% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 97 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aurora on France | 0.6 mi | Edina, MN | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Mount Olivet Careview Home | 1.8 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Mount Olivet Home | 1.8 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Grand Avenue Rest Home | 3.0 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Villas at Richfield | 3.1 mi | Richfield, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Lakehouse Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center | 3.4 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Birchwood Care Home | 4.2 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Estates at Bloomington LLC | 4.2 mi | Bloomington, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Redeemer Health Care Center | 4.2 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| The Villas at the Park | 4.2 mi | Saint Louis Park, MN | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Friendship Village of Bloomington | 4.3 mi | Bloomington, MN | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Jones Harrison Residence | 4.4 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Hennepin, MN — 54 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Fairview University Trans Serv — Minneapolis, MN · overall 5/5
- Flagstone — Eden Prairie, MN · overall 4/5
- Folkestone — Wayzata, MN · overall 5/5
- Good Samaritan Ambassador — New Hope, MN · overall 5/5
- Good Samaritan Society - Specialty Care Community — Robbinsdale, MN · overall 2/5
- Haven Homes of Maple Plain — Maple Plain, MN · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245275.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).