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 →
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 10, 2025
4
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 24, 2025
$98,353
Fines, last 3 years
4.98
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Jan 24, 2025 · F-0880
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.
Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.
Severity (L): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Mar 24, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jul 17, 2024 · F-0806 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Why it matters: Ignoring allergies can be dangerous, and ignoring preferences leads residents to eat less and lose weight.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Jul 11, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · May 16, 2024 · 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 (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Jun 7, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Why it matters: Ignoring these rights means residents may receive treatments they refused, or miss having their end-of-life wishes respected.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Apr 29, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 18 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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 complaintF-0690
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 complaintF-0550
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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. · from a complaintF-0695
View all 18 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
Mar 19, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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 · F-0690
Sep 9, 2025
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
Apr 24, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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. · from a complaint · F-0695
Jan 24, 2025
▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, widespread
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. · F-0880
Jan 24, 2025
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
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. · F-0812
Jan 24, 2025
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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
Jan 24, 2025
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Jan 24, 2025
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. · F-0550
Jan 24, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Jan 24, 2025
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
Sep 12, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint · F-0558
Jul 17, 2024
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint · F-0806
May 16, 2024
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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
Apr 11, 2024
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Apr 11, 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
Apr 11, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
Apr 11, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Mar 14, 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
Inspection trend by year
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations:
8
Serious citations (G–L):
3
2025
All citations:
9
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2026
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2024
8
3
J ▲
2025
9
1
L ▲
2026
1
0
D
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.
4 fines totaling $98,353, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Jan 24, 2025
Fine
$59,010
Jan 24, 2025
Payment Denial
26 days from Feb 26, 2025
Jul 17, 2024
Fine
$13,627
May 16, 2024
Fine
$16,801
Mar 14, 2024
Fine
$8,915
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityMinnesota averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
4.98
Minnesota average:
4.83
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
1.55
Minnesota average:
1.22
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
4.46
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)
4.98
4.83
3.95
top 40% in Minnesota; top 13% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
1.55
1.22
0.69
top 18% in Minnesota; top 4% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
4.46
4.27
3.50
top 38% in Minnesota; top 13% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.90
0.69
0.48
top 21% in Minnesota; top 8% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
51.0
42.2
45.8
bottom 25% in Minnesota; bottom 34% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
51.2
38.6
42.9
bottom 23% in Minnesota; bottom 32% 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 4.81, RN 1.49, weekend 4.31.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.81 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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Guardian Angels Care Center. 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.
CMS records place this facility in Sherburne, MN — 2 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.