MinnesotaRochester

Edenbrook Rochester West

2215 Highway 52 North, Rochester, MN 55901 · Olmsted County · 48 certified beds · avg 28 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1986

Part of chain: EDEN SENIOR CARE (21 facilities, chain avg rating 2.6★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$14,518
Fines, last 3 years
4.19
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: 2/5

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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Sep 8, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Sep 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Oct 24, 2023 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.

Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Oct 9, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 20, 2025 · F-0691

The facility did not provide proper care for residents with a colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy — surgical openings in the abdomen that let waste leave the body into a pouch. These require regular, skilled attention to stay clean and healthy.

Why it matters: Poor ostomy care leads to skin breakdown, infection, pain, and embarrassment for the resident.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Dec 19, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (41)

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
May 13, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Nov 20, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for residents with a colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy — surgical openings in the abdomen that let waste leave the body into a pouch. These require regular, skilled attention to stay clean and healthy.
Nov 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Nov 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Nov 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Nov 20, 2025D · 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). · from a complaint
Nov 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Nov 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care.
Nov 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Nov 20, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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.
Sep 8, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe 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
Dec 10, 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. · from a complaint
Oct 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 23, 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.
Oct 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Oct 23, 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 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · from a complaint
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · from a complaint
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Nov 2, 2023F · 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 2, 2023F · 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.
Nov 2, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Nov 2, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Nov 2, 2023E · 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
Nov 2, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Nov 2, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Nov 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Nov 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · from a complaint
Nov 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Nov 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Nov 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Nov 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Nov 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Oct 24, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Oct 24, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Oct 24, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Oct 24, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Aug 22, 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. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023231J ▲
202450E
2025122J ▲
202610D

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)

1 fine totaling $14,518.

DateTypeAmount / length
Oct 24, 2023Fine$14,518

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)4.194.833.95bottom 24% in Minnesota; top 32% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.751.220.69top 10% in Minnesota; top 3% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.604.273.50bottom 19% in Minnesota; top 37% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)1.300.690.48top 6% in Minnesota; top 3% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)34.442.245.8top 33% in Minnesota; top 23% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)20.038.642.9top 17% in Minnesota; top 13% 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 4.25, RN 1.78, weekend 3.66. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Lerman, YechovedIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest7%12/01/2024
Mauer, DovieIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Polstein, MordechaiIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest30%12/01/2024
Stesel, MaximIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest45%12/01/2024
Zarkh, GlebIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest10%12/01/2024
Hanson, GregoryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Hanson, GregoryIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Kallstrom, ScottIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Kallstrom, ScottIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Lerman, YechovedIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Polstein, MordechaiIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Stesel, MaximIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Stesel, MaximIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Stesel, MaximIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Zarkh, GlebIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024

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
Edenbrook of Rochester0.3 miRochester, MN★★☆☆☆2/5
Madonna Towers of Rochester1.1 miRochester, MN★★★☆☆3/5
Samaritan Bethany Home on Eighth1.8 miRochester, MN★★★☆☆3/5
Charter House INC1.9 miRochester, MN★★★★★4/5
Rochester Rehabilitation and Living Center2.3 miRochester, MN★☆☆☆☆1/5
Rochester Restorative Care Center2.8 miRochester, MN★☆☆☆☆1/5
Stewartville Care Center13.1 miStewartville, MN★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Edenbrook Pine Haven13.5 miPine Island, MN★★☆☆☆3/5
The Green Prairie Rehabilitation Center17.6 miPlainview, MN★★★★★4/5
Fairview Care Center18.8 miDodge Center, MN★★★☆☆3/5
Zumbrota Care Center19.2 miZumbrota, MN★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Rochester →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245306.