Gil-Mor Manor
96 Third Street East, Morgan, MN 56266 · Redwood County · 35 certified beds · avg 30 residents/day · certified since Nov 1, 1991
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.69
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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.
All citations in the current public record (29)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Dec 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Dec 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jul 24, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jul 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jun 13, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. |
| Jun 13, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. |
| Jun 13, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jun 13, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Jun 13, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Jun 13, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Jun 13, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The 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. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not give all staff the required training on its quality improvement program — the internal system for finding problems and making care better. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
| Aug 16, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 10).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 13 | 0 | F |
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)
| Measure | This facility | Minnesota avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.69 | 4.83 | 3.95 | top 14% in Minnesota; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.78 | 1.22 | 0.69 | bottom 12% in Minnesota; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 5.05 | 4.27 | 3.50 | top 13% in Minnesota; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.36 | 0.69 | 0.48 | bottom 12% in Minnesota; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 0.0 | 42.2 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | — |
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 4.42, RN 0.61, weekend 3.92. 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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Who owns this facility
Non profit - Other
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kopischke, Douglas | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2005 |
| Madsen, Lynn | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2011 |
| Meyers, Tammy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2011 |
| Miller, Suzanne | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/03/2014 |
| Pietig, Lynn | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2003 |
| Rothmeier, Terrie | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/16/2016 |
| Rothmeier, Terrie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/16/2016 |
| Simonsen, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2008 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Who is your infection preventionist, and what training do they have?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "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?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Franklin Restorative Care Center | 7.7 mi | Franklin, MN | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Divine Providence Community Home | 12.0 mi | Sleepy Eye, MN | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| St John Lutheran Home | 12.3 mi | Springfield, MN | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| River Valley Health and Rehabilitation Center LLC | 12.5 mi | Redwood Falls, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sleepy Eye Rehabilitati Center | 12.9 mi | Sleepy Eye, MN | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Wabasso Restorative Care Center | 16.4 mi | Wabasso, MN | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245594.