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 →
Part of chain: CARE INITIATIVES (43 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 24, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jul 6, 2024
$39,033
Fines, last 3 years
3.77
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, isolated · Jul 6, 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: Jul 7, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 10 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. F-0803
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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. F-0656
View all 10 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
Nov 24, 2025
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803
Nov 24, 2025
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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
Nov 24, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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. · F-0656
Nov 24, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Feb 26, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
Jul 6, 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
Dec 21, 2023
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Aug 30, 2023
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The 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. · F-0725
Aug 30, 2023
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
Aug 30, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, 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
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)
2023
All citations:
4
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2024
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2025
All citations:
5
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
2023
4
0
E
2024
1
1
J ▲
2025
5
0
E
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.
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
Jul 6, 2024
Fine
$39,033
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 facilityIowa averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
3.77
Iowa average:
4.37
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.65
Iowa average:
0.85
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.28
Iowa average:
3.86
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
Iowa avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
3.77
4.37
3.95
bottom 22% in Iowa; top 50% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.65
0.85
0.69
bottom 29% in Iowa; top 41% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.28
3.86
3.50
bottom 21% in Iowa; bottom 46% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.29
0.51
0.48
bottom 14% in Iowa; bottom 30% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
31.3
44.0
45.8
top 20% in Iowa; top 17% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
20.0
42.1
42.9
top 18% in Iowa; top 13% 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 3.20, RN 0.56, weekend 2.78.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.20 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 Northern Mahaska Specialty Care. 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.
Showing 20 of 24 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 4 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Care Initiatives — 43 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 165274.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
The Care File
Visit checklist — Northern Mahaska Specialty Care
2401 Crestview Drive, Oskaloosa, IA 52577 · (641) 673-3000
Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 2/5· Fines (3y): $39,033
Most serious findings on record:
▲ Jul 6, 2024 (F-0689, 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.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
☐ "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
☐ "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
☐ "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
☐ "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Iowa midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
☐ "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
☐ "CMS reports 31% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "The ownership record on file lists 24 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 165274 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)