Minnesota ›Minnetonka

Hope Springs at Minnetonka

16913 Highway 7, Minnetonka, MN 55345 · Hennepin County · 21 certified beds · avg 20 residents/day · certified since Jul 2, 1992

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$9,496
Fines, last 3 years
0.00
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: 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 (37)

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
Jun 4, 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.
Jun 4, 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.
Jun 4, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Jun 4, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jun 4, 2026D · 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.
Feb 14, 2025F · 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.
Feb 14, 2025F · 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.
Feb 14, 2025F · 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.
Feb 14, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Feb 14, 2025F · 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.
Feb 14, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Feb 14, 2025D · 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.
Feb 14, 2025D · 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.
Feb 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Feb 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Feb 14, 2025D · 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.
Feb 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Feb 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Feb 14, 2025D · 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.
Feb 14, 2025D · 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.
May 16, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately.
May 16, 2024F · 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.
May 16, 2024F · 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.
May 16, 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.
May 16, 2024F · 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.
May 16, 2024F · 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.
May 16, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not include required infection control training — with written standards, policies, and procedures — as part of its infection prevention program.
May 16, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
May 16, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs.
May 16, 2024D · 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.
May 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care or assistance for a resident who uses a prosthesis, such as an artificial limb.
May 16, 2024D · 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.
May 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents.
May 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
May 16, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (16 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2024160F
2025160F
202650F

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)

3 fines totaling $9,496.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 20, 2024Fine$2,659
Feb 12, 2024Fine$2,279
Jan 22, 2024Fine$4,558

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)0.004.833.95—
Registered Nurse hours0.001.220.69—
Weekend total nurse staffing0.004.273.50—
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.000.690.48—
Total nursing staff turnover (%)12.542.245.8top 1% in Minnesota; top 1% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.038.642.9—

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 0.00, RN 0.00, weekend 0.00. Staffing rating: 1/5.

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 - Individual

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ownership Data Not Available

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
The Estates at Excelsior LLC3.2 miExcelsior, MN★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Folkestone3.7 miWayzata, MN★★★★★4/5
Chapel View Health Care Center4.5 miHopkins, MN★★★★☆3/5
Hopkins Restorative Care Center4.6 miHopkins, MN★☆☆☆☆2/5
Sholom Home West5.3 miSaint Louis Park, MN★★★★★4/5
Flagstone5.4 miEden Prairie, MN★★★★☆3/5
The Estates at St Louis Park LLC5.9 miSaint Louis Park, MN★★★☆☆2/5
The Villas at the Cedars6.2 miSaint Louis Park, MN★☆☆☆☆1/5
Friendship Village of Bloomington6.7 miBloomington, MN★★★★☆3/5
The Villas at St Louis Park6.7 miSaint Louis Park, MN★★☆☆☆2/5
Allina Health Restorative Suites6.9 miPlymouth, MN★★★★★4/5
Lake Minnetonka Shores7.1 miSpring Park, MN★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Minnetonka →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245606.