Park View Rehabilitation Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Park View Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of D, which means it is below average and has some concerning issues. It ranks #290 out of 392 facilities in Iowa, placing it in the bottom half, and #3 out of 4 in Sac County, indicating only one local option is better. The facility's performance is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Although staffing is a relative strength with a 3-star rating and a turnover rate of 40%, which is lower than the state average, there are concerns about RN coverage being less than 78% of Iowa facilities. Additionally, the facility has incurred $30,465 in fines, which is higher than 75% of Iowa facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues. Specific incidents include a resident whose wound care was not adequately followed up, leading to deterioration and hospitalization, and another resident who suffered multiple falls due to a malfunctioning pressure alarm, resulting in serious injuries. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing, the facility has significant weaknesses that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Iowa
- #290/392
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near Iowa's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $30,465 in fines. Lower than most Iowa facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Iowa. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 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
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Iowa average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Iowa average (3.0)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Iowa avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
3 deficiencies
2 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance wi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received adequate supervision...
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative of a change in condition fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interviews, clinical record reviews, and policy reviews the facility failed to review and revise the Care Plan interventions for 2 of 12 residents reviewed (#4, #17). The ...
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, record review, staff interviews, the facility failed to have an emergency tracheostomy kit with obturator...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, clinical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a Comprehensive Care Plan for 4 of 12 residents reviewed (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interview, and infection control policy review, the facility failed to complete hand hygiene when assisting residents to eat, at the same time, in an effort to reduce the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
3 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
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, resident interviews, facility documentation, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to pr...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate transfers for 2 or 6 residents reviewed (Resident #2 and #1) to ensure a safe transfer accor...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provide adequate incont...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, facility records, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to allow 1 of 36 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, facility policy, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to report a change in a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, facility policy, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to perform restorative t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, facility records, facility policy, resident representative interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to file a grievance for an issue reported by a resident's represent...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, facility record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure proper temperatures for foods served to residents. The facility reported a census of 36 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure residents received the proper diet texture to meet the residents needs in 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #20)....
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 40% turnover. Below Iowa's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $30,465 in fines. Higher than 94% of Iowa facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade D (40/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Park View Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Park View Rehabilitation Center 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 Park View Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates Park View Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Iowa average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Park View Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at Park View Rehabilitation Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 15 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Park View Rehabilitation Center?
Park View Rehabilitation Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LEGACY HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 77 certified beds and approximately 36 residents (about 47% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SAC CITY, Iowa.
How Does Park View Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Park View Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Park View Rehabilitation Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Park View Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Park View Rehabilitation Center 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 Park View Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Park View Rehabilitation Center has a staff turnover rate of 40%, which is about average for Iowa nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Park View Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
Park View Rehabilitation Center has been fined $30,465 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Iowa average of $33,384. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Park View Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Park View Rehabilitation Center 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.