Elm Crest Retirement Community
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Elm Crest Retirement Community in Harlan, Iowa has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average care with some concerns. Ranked #266 out of 392 facilities in Iowa, they are in the bottom half overall, although they are the top choice in Shelby County. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 4 in 2023 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is average with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 68%, significantly higher than the state average of 44%. While the home has no fines recorded, some serious incidents have been noted, such as a resident falling due to improper transfer techniques and a failure to follow sanitation protocols, which could risk spreading illness. Overall, while there are some strengths, families should be aware of the significant weaknesses in care and safety practices.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Iowa
- #266/392
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Iowa. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Iowa average (3.0)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
22pts above Iowa avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
20 points above Iowa average of 48%
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, facility document review, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, clinical record review, facility document review and policy review the facility failed to ensure that...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to complete a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) asse...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on electronic health record review, document review, policy review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical document review, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide services to increase mobility or prevent a loss in mobility for 1 of 2 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, facility record review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to follow proper sanitation to prevent the spread of illness according to professional standards by...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to use universal...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provide the needed services in accor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan to r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and operator manual review the facility failed to ensure that staff used safe transfer techniqu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to dispose of narcotic medications after the doctor gave...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and service record review the facility failed to keep the ice machine clean and sanitary. The facility reported a census of 40 residents.
Findings include:
In a tour ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure that staff practiced recommended hand hygiene to prevent the spread of pathogens during the meal service. The facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, clinical record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to utilize int...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, Physician Assistant (PA) interview, staff interviews, clinical record reviews, and facility policy review...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, clinical record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, clinical review records, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store residents' medications in a safe and secured manner in one of one medication ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Elm Crest Retirement Community's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Elm Crest Retirement Community an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Iowa, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Elm Crest Retirement Community Staffed?
CMS rates Elm Crest Retirement Community's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 68%, which is 22 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Elm Crest Retirement Community?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at Elm Crest Retirement Community during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 17 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Elm Crest Retirement Community?
Elm Crest Retirement Community is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by AMERICAN BAPTIST HOMES OF THE MIDWEST, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Harlan, Iowa.
How Does Elm Crest Retirement Community Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Elm Crest Retirement Community's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (68%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Elm Crest Retirement Community?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Elm Crest Retirement Community Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Elm Crest Retirement Community has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Elm Crest Retirement Community Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Elm Crest Retirement Community is high. At 68%, the facility is 22 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 56%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Elm Crest Retirement Community Ever Fined?
Elm Crest Retirement Community has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Elm Crest Retirement Community on Any Federal Watch List?
Elm Crest Retirement Community is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.