Minnesota ›West Saint Paul

Southview Acres Healthcare Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

2000 Oakdale Avenue, West Saint Paul, MN 55118 (opens Google Maps) · Dakota County · (651) 554-9558· 210 certified beds · avg 173 residents/day · certified since Apr 15, 1974 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

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: AKIKO IKE (6 facilities, chain avg rating 3.5★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 12, 2026
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 26, 2026
$41,555
Fines, last 3 years
5.06
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →

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)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 26, 2026 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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 15, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 7, 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Feb 9, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 12, 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Feb 9, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 43 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual 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. · from a complaint F-0684

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint F-0842

  3. F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread

    The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · from a complaint F-0851

View all 43 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Mar 26, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Mar 26, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Mar 12, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · from a complaint · F-0851
Mar 12, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580
Mar 12, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628
Mar 12, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Mar 12, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 12, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0657
Mar 12, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0686
Mar 12, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791
Mar 12, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 26, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0880
Jan 9, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0686
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0690
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0757
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · F-0773
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0805
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 7, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 30, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 30, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · from a complaint · F-0553
Jan 12, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost. · from a complaint · F-0572
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0656
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0686
Nov 30, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0677
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0758
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883
Sep 28, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 9).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 1

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202390E
202492G ▲
2025140E
2026111G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $41,555.

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.

DateTypeAmount / length
Nov 30, 2023Fine$41,555

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

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: 5.06
Minnesota average: 4.83
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.21
Minnesota average: 1.22
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.51
Minnesota average: 4.27
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityMinnesota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.064.833.95top 38% in Minnesota; top 12% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.211.220.69top 41% in Minnesota; top 9% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.514.273.50top 35% in Minnesota; top 12% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.550.690.48bottom 45% in Minnesota; top 27% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)—42.245.8—
RN turnover (%)—38.642.9—

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 4.27, RN 1.02, weekend 3.81.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.27 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.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Southview Acres Healthcare 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.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bogey Holdings, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%02/25/2019
Ike, AkikoIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—02/25/2019
Katz, AbeIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—02/10/2025
Akasa South Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/23/2019
Asiv Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
Bartlett, AllysonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/09/2024
Bartlett, AllysonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/09/2024
Beachfront Holdings, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
Birdie Holdings, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
David M Fistel SV LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/23/2019
Fairway WSP Realty LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
Feyder, JamesIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2017
Feyder, JamesIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2017
Folston, NicoleIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/23/2024
Folston, NicoleIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/23/2024
Hoiland, ChristaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2017
Hoiland, ChristaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2017
Ike, AkikoIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
Ike, AkikoIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
Ingvalsen, MelissaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/25/2024

Showing 20 of 33 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 13 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 Akiko Ike — 6 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
  • "How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
  • "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
  • "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
  • "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 33 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 93 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Good Samaritan Society - Inver Grove Heights0.6 miInver Grove Heights, MN★★★☆☆3/5
Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge II1.3 miWest Saint Paul, MN★★☆☆☆2/5
Woodlyn Heights Healthcare Center1.4 miInver Grove Heights, MN★★☆☆☆2/5
Cerenity Care Center on Humboldt3.2 miSaint Paul, MN★★☆☆☆2/5
Shirley Chapman Sholom Home East4.0 miSaint Paul, MN★★★★☆3/5
Little Sisters of the Poor4.1 miSaint Paul, MN★★☆☆☆2/5
Cerenity Marian of St Paul LLC4.3 miSaint Paul, MN★★★★☆3/5
Ebenezer Integrated Care & Rehab4.6 miSaint Paul, MN★★★★☆3/5
Highland Chateau Health and Rehabilitation Center4.8 miSaint Paul, MN—/5SFF
The Emeralds at St Paul LLC4.9 miSaint Paul, MN★☆☆☆☆1/5
Capital View Transitional Care Center4.9 miSaint Paul, MN★★★★★5/5
The Villas at St Paul5.2 miSaint Paul, MN★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Dakota, MN — 9 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in West Saint Paul →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245189.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details