MinnesotaWorthington

The Shores of Worthington

1307 South Shore Drive, Worthington, MN 56187 · Nobles County · 69 certified beds · avg 52 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1992

Abuse citation flag (CMS)SFF Candidate

Part of chain: EPHRAM LAHASKY (22 facilities, chain avg rating 1.8★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
5
Serious findings on record
$156,790
Fines, last 3 years
4.12
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Feb 19, 2026 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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: Feb 7, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Jan 15, 2025 · F-0880 · triggered by a complaint

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): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: Feb 7, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Aug 29, 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): 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 4, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · May 1, 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): 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: Apr 23, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Dec 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jan 6, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (61)

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 30, 2026F · 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. · from a complaint
Apr 30, 2026F · 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.
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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).
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs.
Feb 19, 2026▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Feb 19, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a physician to serve as medical director — the doctor responsible for overseeing resident care policies and coordinating medical care across the facility. · from a complaint
Feb 19, 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. · from a complaint
Apr 11, 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. · from a complaint
Apr 11, 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
Apr 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 11, 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
Mar 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Mar 4, 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 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a proper governing body legally responsible for its policies and operations, or that body failed to appoint a properly licensed administrator to manage the facility.
Mar 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies.
Mar 4, 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.
Mar 4, 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.
Mar 4, 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 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Mar 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not give all staff the required training on its quality improvement program — the internal system for finding problems and making care better.
Mar 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Mar 4, 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.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure resident assessments were done by a qualified health professional. Assessments guide all of a resident's care, so the person doing them must be properly trained.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 4, 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.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Mar 4, 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.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Mar 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows.
Jan 15, 2025▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, 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. · from a complaint
Dec 12, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, 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
Dec 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · from a complaint
Dec 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 12, 2024D · 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
Dec 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · from a complaint
Dec 12, 2024D · 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
Aug 29, 2024▲ 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
May 1, 2024▲ 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
May 1, 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
Dec 21, 2023F · 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.
Dec 21, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Dec 21, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not give all staff the required training on its quality improvement program — the internal system for finding problems and making care better.
Dec 21, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 21, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Dec 21, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint
Dec 21, 2023D · 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.
Dec 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Dec 21, 2023D · 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.
Dec 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.
Dec 21, 2023D · 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.
Dec 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Dec 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (23 → 6).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023150F
202493J ▲
2025281L ▲
202691J ▲

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)

6 fines totaling $156,790, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 19, 2026Fine$15,940
Dec 12, 2024Fine$107,550
Dec 12, 2024Payment Denial28 days from Jan 10, 2025
Aug 29, 2024Fine$19,725
May 1, 2024Fine$8,988
Sep 11, 2023Fine$2,470
Sep 5, 2023Fine$2,117

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)4.124.833.95bottom 21% in Minnesota; top 35% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.171.220.69top 45% in Minnesota; top 10% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.994.273.50bottom 38% in Minnesota; top 23% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.830.690.48top 25% in Minnesota; top 10% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)57.942.245.8bottom 14% in Minnesota; bottom 20% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)61.538.642.9bottom 16% in Minnesota; bottom 20% 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 3.76, RN 1.07, weekend 3.64. 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: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Cbay Worthington Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest13%03/14/2016
Katz, AbeIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest21%03/14/2016
MB Worthington Holdings, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest21%03/14/2016
Atchison, BarbaraIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2016
Kessler, ScottIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE08/21/2017

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
Osceola Senior Living15.4 miSibley, IA★★★★★4/5
Sibley Specialty Care16.4 miSibley, IA★★★★★3/5
Maple Lawn Senior Care18.3 miFulda, MN★★★☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Worthington →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245596.