MinnesotaStarbuck

Minnewaska Community Health Services

605 Main Street, Starbuck, MN 56381 · Pope County · 39 certified beds · avg 30 residents/day · certified since Jul 27, 1989

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$25,150
Fines, last 3 years
7.21
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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Mar 25, 2025 · F-0578

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

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Sep 21, 2023 · 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): 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 14, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)

All citations in the current public record (18)

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
Apr 29, 2026B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Nov 24, 2025D · 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. · from a complaint
Jul 1, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Mar 28, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Mar 25, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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.
Mar 25, 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.
Mar 25, 2025F · 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.
Mar 25, 2025F · 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.
Mar 25, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Mar 25, 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.
Mar 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Jan 16, 2025D · 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
Jan 24, 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.
Jan 24, 2024E · 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.
Jan 24, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Jan 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint
Jan 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · from a complaint
Sep 21, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 1).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202311J ▲
202450F
2025111J ▲
202610B

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)

2 fines totaling $25,150.

DateTypeAmount / length
Mar 25, 2025Fine$11,357
Sep 21, 2023Fine$13,793

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)7.214.833.95top 2% in Minnesota; top 1% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.461.220.69top 23% in Minnesota; top 5% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing6.584.273.50top 2% in Minnesota; top 1% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.650.690.48top 44% in Minnesota; top 19% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)61.542.245.8bottom 11% in Minnesota; bottom 14% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)33.338.642.9top 45% in Minnesota; top 33% 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 7.14, RN 1.44, weekend 6.52. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Church related

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Anderson, FaithIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/27/2019
Aslagson, KayoIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2007
Brandt, PeterIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/22/2015
Ehrenberg, MichelleIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE08/22/2019
Engler, BrianIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE12/28/2007
Engler, BrianIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE02/28/2007
Hendrickson, RobertIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/26/2012
Knoll, ChristopherIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/30/2014
Knoll, ChristopherIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/03/2014
Reese, AliceIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2013
Samuelson, JohnIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2011
Stark, StanleyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/28/2016

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
Glenwood Village Care Center7.3 miGlenwood, MN★☆☆☆☆1/5
West Wind Village19.3 miMorris, MN★★★★★4/5
Bethany on the Lake LLC19.7 miAlexandria, MN★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Knute Nelson Care Center19.9 miAlexandria, MN★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Starbuck →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245537.