THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Lutheran Home in Belle Plaine has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average in quality, but still has room for improvement. It ranks #151 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, placing it in the top half, but only #3 out of 4 in Scott County, meaning there is one local option that is better. The facility's performance has been stable, with 7 issues identified in both 2024 and 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 33%, which is better than the state average. However, the facility has less RN coverage than 86% of Minnesota facilities, which is concerning, and they have faced fines totaling $8,827, which is average. Specific incidents include a critical failure where a resident with dementia left a secured memory care unit unsupervised and was found outside, posing a significant safety risk. Additionally, the facility did not follow proper infection control practices while assisting multiple residents with meals, and they failed to offer the pneumococcal vaccine to several residents as recommended, which could affect their health. Overall, while the home has strong staffing and is performing adequately, there are serious safety and health concerns that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Minnesota
- #151/337
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 33% turnover. Near Minnesota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $8,827 in fines. Higher than 87% of Minnesota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 50 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Minnesota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (33%)
15 points below Minnesota average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
13pts below Minnesota avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
1 deficiency
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to report an allegation of deprivation of good within 2-hours to the St...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
6 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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure preferences for bedtime were honored and impl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide routine removal of facial hair for 1 of 2 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a bowel movement (BM) protocol for 1 of 1 resident (R7)...
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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to utilize infection control practices while assisting...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the pneumococcal (PCV20) vaccine was offered or administer...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure written notice of transfer was provided to the resident an...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to implement therapy recommendations in a timely manner...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure doses of a controlled substance were stored in a manner to reduce the risk of theft and/or diversion in 1 of 1 refriger...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0847
(Tag F0847)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to inform the resident or representative of the right to not sign the arbitration agreement as a condition of admission or as a requirement 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 and interview, the facility failed to follow proper procedures to prevent the spread of infection when empt...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure nurse staff postings were accurate and up-to-date on a daily basis. This had the potential to affect all 50 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
1 deficiency
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of potential abuse were immediately reported t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled with current, accur...
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, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was completed for 1 of 1 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for 1 of 1 resident (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 33% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
About This Facility
What is The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Minnesota, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine Staffed?
CMS rates THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 33%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 15 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine?
THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BELLE PLAINE, Minnesota.
How Does The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (33%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Minnesota. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine Stick Around?
THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE has a staff turnover rate of 33%, which is about average for Minnesota 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 The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine Ever Fined?
THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE has been fined $8,827 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Minnesota average of $33,167. 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 The Lutheran Home: Belle Plaine on Any Federal Watch List?
THE LUTHERAN HOME: BELLE PLAINE 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.