LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC.

310 LAKE BOULEVARD, BUFFALO, MN 55313 (763) 404-4603
Non profit - Corporation 56 Beds CASSIA Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#47 of 337 in MN
Last Inspection: December 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Lake Ridge Care Center of Buffalo, Inc. has received a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #47 out of 337 nursing homes in Minnesota, placing it in the top half, and #3 of 7 in Wright County, meaning only two local facilities are rated higher. However, the trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2023 to 5 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, rated 5 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 41%, which is slightly below the state average of 42%. Notably, the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive sign. On the downside, there have been serious incidents, including a medication error that resulted in a resident being hospitalized after not receiving necessary medication for four days, leading to acute respiratory failure. Additionally, there were failures to complete required preadmission screenings and to develop a comprehensive care plan for residents, which could affect the quality of care provided. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and no fines, families should consider the recent increase in issues and specific incidents that could impact resident safety and wellbeing.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Minnesota
#47/337
Top 13%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near Minnesota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 78 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Minnesota nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2024: 5 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below Minnesota average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near Minnesota avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: CASSIA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Dec 2024 5 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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to promptly obtain diuretic medication and failed to notify the phys...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to promptly obtain diuretic medication and failed to notify the physician to prevent the continued increase of carbon dioxide for 1 of 2 residents (R24) reviewed for medication errors. This practice resulted in a significant medication error and actual harm when R24 did not receive medication for 4 consecutive days resulting in R24 being sent to the emergency room to receive care for acute onset chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (condition in which the body or a region of the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply at the tissue level) and hypercapnia (condition where there is too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood). Findings include: R24's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R24 had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s. R24's diagnoses included acute on chronic diastolic heart failure, hypertension, hyponatremia, schizophrenia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, acute kidney failure, dysphagia, and emphysema. R24's physician's order dated 10/25/2024, identified R24 was prescribed 250 milligrams (MG) of oral Diamox (diuretic medication) twice daily for increased CO2 and hypercapnia. Review of R24's laboratory results for labs drawn on 10/25/24, indicated R24's CO2 levels were greater than 45 mmol/L (millimoles per liter). The range for normal CO2 levels are between 20 to 29 mmol/L. Review of R24's medication administration record (MAR) from 10/21/24 to 11/3/24, identified Diamox was ordered on 10/25/24 but was not administered to R24 for a total of eight doses. Seven of the eight doses (10/25/24 through 10/28/24) indicated Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. Dose on 10/29/24 indicated Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable - Comment: called A&E for supply. R24's progress notes from 10/25/24 to 10/29/24 gave no indication R24's Diamox prescription was never received from pharmacy or R24's provider was contacted. Progress notes failed to identify any attempt to receive or follow up on R24's Diamox medication. R24's progress note dated 10/29/24 at 11:04 a.m., indicated resident was sent to the emergency department (ER) due to difficulty breathing, severe low oxygen saturations (69%), high respirations (32 breaths per minute) and skin was gray in color. R24's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], identified principal diagnoses of acute on chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia. The following criteria for acute respiratory failure were met; increase of at least 2L (liters) from chronic home O2 (oxygen), PCO2 (partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide) greater than 50, O2 sats less than 89% more than once, and respiratory rate greater than 20 breaths per minute. Summary indicated shortness of breath, at baseline resident on 3L oxygen and needed up to 15L of oxygen and now back down to 3L, although no wheezing patient had significantly diminished air entry to the bases, was retaining CO2 and likely leading to increased work of breathing and addition of oral prednisone (steroid) for 5 days. R24 was discharged from hospital and returned to facility on 11/1/24 at 1:30 p.m. During interview on 12/4/24 at 10:42 a.m., pharmacist stated Diamox was a lot like Lasix as it helped to rid body of excess fluid and worked by inhibiting the enzymes as it disrupted the balance between acid base ratios. Potential side effects of not receiving the medication would be shortness of breath. Pharmacist stated R24 not receiving eight doses of medication contributed to resident being sent to the ER for increased CO2 and hypercapnia. She would considered this a significant medication error as it would affect her breathing. Pharmacist stated medication was filled on 10/29/24 from the original prescription that was prescribed in April 2024 for once daily. She was not able to find an order, that was prescribed in October, for Diamox twice daily in the system. Pharmacist stated facility may not have sent the updated prescription to the pharmacy. During interview on 12/5/24 at 8:05 a.m., trained medication aide (TMA)-B stated if a medication was not available, she would notify the nurse. TMA-B stated the nurse does the communication/ordering of medications. TMA-B stated she would write down medications that are needed and give them to the nurse as it is sometimes difficult to get things. TMA-B stated if it had been a couple of days and medication was still not available, she notified the nurse again to remind to call pharmacy to see where medication was. During interview on 12/5/24 at 9:01 a.m., nurse practitioner (NP) stated medication was prescribed on 10/25/24 on the direction of Dr. [NAME] for increasing CO2 and hypercapnia based on labs that were obtained on 10/25/24. NP stated she was not aware of facility notifying her of resident not receiving medication. NP stated R24 was sent to the ER due to her history of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and CO2 retention. During interview on 12/5/24 at 10:20 a.m., TMA-C stated if medication was not available, she would first check the Omnicell to see if medication was available and if not, she would report it to the nurse by writing it on her report sheet. TMA-C stated the nurse was the only one that does the communication with pharmacy. TMA-C stated director of nursing (DON) talked to her on 12/3/24 regarding her process if medication was not available. During interview on 12/5/24 at 10:46 a.m., health unit coordinator (HUC)-A and HUC-B stated when a new order was received, they enter the order in the electronic health record (EHR), place the order in file folder for nurse to review and scans the order to their email to send to pharmacy. HUC-A and HUC-B stated they did not have any confirmation page/email that order was sent to pharmacy. During interview on 12/5/24 at 10:58 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-B stated if a TMA was unable to find a medication, they should go and look in the Omnicell for medication. If medication was not available in the Omnicell, TMA should tell nurse who would call the pharmacy and document the communication in the progress notes. LPN-B stated new orders are entered in the EHR and sent to pharmacy by the HUC and then the nurse would go and verify the order. LPN-B stated she did not remember this medication or if she contacted pharmacy. LPN-B stated if she had contacted pharmacy, she would have documented it in a progress note. LPN-B stated she does not recall being updated by any TMA's that medication was not available. During interview on 12/5/24 at 11:39 a.m., TMA-D stated if medication was not available, she would check the Omnicell and would then notify the nurse. TMA-D stated the nurse was the one that follows up with pharmacy regarding medications. During interview on 12/5/24 at 12:29 p.m., LPN-C stated if medication was not available, Omnicell should be checked for availability. Pharmacy would then be called to check on the status and would also check the medication receipt book from pharmacy to see if medication had been delivered. LPN-C stated a progress note would be documented regarding communication with the pharmacy. During interview on 12/5/24 at 12:39 p.m., DON stated she expected the nurse to contact pharmacy to get clarification on what was happening with delivery of any medication not received. She expected the TMAs to communicate to the nurse on duty when a medication was not available. Some nurses documented pharmacy communication in progress notes, and some documented it on the medication administration record (MAR). DON stated it was best practice to document all communication with providers. New orders were transcribed by the HUC and then placed in the unit folder for the nurse to verify order. DON stated the HUC sent orders to the pharmacy upon transcription of order. DON stated she was on medical leave at the time of medication error and that a preliminary investigation was completed by a LPN-A but was not thoroughly completed. From a clinical standpoint, there was a critical lab value, and we did not give the medication that was prescribed to mitigate the risk. If medication was administered as prescribed, they may not have needed to send R27 to the hospital. During interview on 12/6/24 at 9:19 a.m., LPN care coordinator-A stated if a medication was not available, the TMA would check the Omnicell to see if medication was available and if medication was not in Omnicell, TMA would notify the nurse. LPN-A stated the nurse would call the pharmacy to check on the status of the medication. LPN-A stated she would expect the nurse to document any communication with pharmacy or providers. LPN-A stated she was notified on 10/29/24 that R24 had not received any Diamox that was prescribed on 10/25/24. She followed up with pharmacy, was informed the medication would be out for delivery on the night of 10/29/24. LPN-A stated she started the incident event in the EHR and mentioned the incident to a couple of people but did not do any other investigation and/or interviews regarding incident. During interview on 12/6/24 at 10:00 a.m., DON stated that she was in the middle of investigating the incident when she talked to surveyor on 12/5/24. DON identified if it wasn't charted, it wasn't done and confirmed no documentation was found regarding incident. DON stated education and new procedures were implemented in the past 12 hours to prevent reoccurrence. Changes to procedure consisted of proper communication chains, reminders of what to do when a medication was not available, changed the option in the EMR where TMAs are not able to use the drug unused/unavailable feature and education of placing a progress note on all communications that have transpired. During interview on 12/6/24 at 10:26 a.m., medical director stated the facility had not made him aware of this medication error and found it during his monthly review of incidents and pharmacy review. Medical director stated communication was not timely. The facility Medication Administration policy, dated 10/8/24, indicated medications will be administered by licensed nurses or trained medication aides under the supervision of a licensed nurse. The facility Ordering Medication policy, dated 10/8/24, indicated if medication was not found, staff to look on the printed sheet to verify that it was filled and look for the medication before calling the pharmacy. If, after searching, staff cannot find the medication and it is not in the printout as being sent, call the pharmacy. The facility Trained Medication Aide job description, dated 12/8/2023, indicated TMAs are to report medication refused or not given to the overseeing nurse. The facility Licensed Practical Nurse job description, undated, indicated LPNs coordinated medications, supplies and equipment including ordering, receiving, storing, and disposing of all items in accordance with facility policies and procedures.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 a level II preadmission screening and resident review (PAS...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a level II preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) was completed for 1 of 1 residents (R35) residents reviewed with a diagnosis of Mild intellectual Disability. Findings include: R35's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE]; indicated R35 had diagnosis of anxiety disorder. In review of R35's History and Physical, dated [DATE], diagnoses also included obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and Adjustment disorder with anxious mood. R35's admission date was [DATE]. In review of R35' level I PASARR was completed on [DATE] prior to admission and indicated a PASARR level II was required before R35 admitted to a nursing facility. Form also indicated the presence of a developmental disability. In review of R35's Level II PASARR (dated [DATE]) indicated the diagnosis of Mild Intellectual Disability. The anticipated length of stay: 61-90 days. In further review of R35's level II PASARR, under Final Determination of Length of Stay, The screener completing this form marked the following: The person has developmental disabilities or related conditions and meets one of the following conditions (if yes, pick one of next four options): > As determined by the physician, this person requires recuperative care for physical illness or surgery for the hospitalization was required within the past two weeks. This person does require nursing facility (NF) services and will be admitted to the NF for a time limited stay of 150 days or less. > This person has a terminal illness and/or requires hospice services. Based on signed statements from the physician, this person's life expectancy is six months or less. This person does require NF services and will be admitted to the NF for long-term care. > This person requires a NF stay of fewer than 30 days and the person is expected to return to the community following the brief NF stay. This person requires NF services and will be admitted to the NF. > This person had ongoing medical and health needs and requires NF services. This person will be admitted to the NF for a stay of 151 days or more. Of the four options given none of them were marked as the reason for admission. The Level II PASARR indicated Anticipated discharge date of [DATE]. In further review of R35's medical record, a second Level I PASARR had been completed on [DATE]. Both Level 1 PASARRs were accompanied by a Level II. Both Level IIs were dark and illegible, being unable to determine if R35 rquired any services, the nursing home could not provide. An attached email documented R35 had Department of Human Services (DHS) approval R35's continued long term care stay only through [DATE]. In interview on [DATE] at 10:16 a.m., R35 stated he had been living in a group home in Otsego before coming here. He was unaware of why he was in this facility, only that this was where he was to now live. During multiple survey observations, from [DATE] - [DATE], R35 was observed independently attending facility activities and meals with verbal cueing, laying on his bed watching TV, and walking around the central dayroom / entrance area people watching. On [DATE] at 3:25 p.m., attempt was made to contact by phone the [NAME] County social worker (COLSW) who had completed all of R35's PASARRs. A voice message was left with a call back number. No call back had been received during the duration of the survey. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 7:43 a.m., R35's family member (FAM)-A stated R35 had been in multiple group homes since his mother died. During the last group home stay, the facility was not monitoring R35's blood pressures and edema (fluid retention in his feet and legs), and had not been updating the primary physician when blood pressures were elevate and edema was present. Family requested nursing home stay due to their concerns the group home setting was not meeting R35's health care needs. FAM-A stated the biggest issue they group homes were having with R35, was resident digging in / playing with his bowel movements. The group home he was in was not monitoring his behavior, and R35 was storing stool soiled clothing throughout his room. Family had ask for oversight, but it was not being done by the facility. During interview on [DATE] at 3:11 p.m., licensed social workers (LSW)-A and LSW-B stated they were unaware R35's Level II PASARR had not been completed by the COLSW. Both LSWs stated they assumed the Level II PASARR was complete and accurate. LSW-B stated R35's family were concerned resident's health needs were not being met in the group home setting. Both LSWs state they are not the ones who determine R35's length of stay, but rather the COLSW and DHS. LSW-B stated the County has historically been behind in assessments. A review of the facility's policy, entitled Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR)-MN, last revised [DATE], the policy indicted the following: Developmental Disability 1. Potential residents who are determined to have a developmental disability or related condition must be approved for admission by the state Developmental Disability Authority (DDA) and approval must include an approved length of stay prior to admission into the nursing facility.
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

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive, person-centered care plan was developed, accurate, and revised to assure assessed care needs were implemented for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive, person-centered care plan was developed, accurate, and revised to assure assessed care needs were implemented for 1 of 2 residents (R35) reviewed for care planning. Findings include: R35's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), 11/05/2024; indicated R35 had diagnoses including anxiety disorder. In review of R35's History and Physical, dated 10/27/23, additional diagnoses included obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and Adjustment disorder with anxious mood. In review of R35' level I PASARR was completed on 10/30/23 prior to admission and indicated a PASARR level II was required before R35 admitted to a nursing facility, indicated the presence of a developmental disability. In review of R35's Level II PASARR (dated 11/09/23) indicated the diagnosis of Mild Intellectual Disability. In review of R35's care plan (last revised 11/13/24), R35 had a documented problem of: Problem Start Date: 11/22/2023 Category: Psychosocial Well-Being Resident has [PASARR] Level II for Persons with Mental Illness and or Intellectual Disability or a related condition due to DX of Obsessive-compulsive disorder, unspecified and Adjustment disorder with anxiety . Resident needs specialized services and the [PASARR] screening team has determined that resident meets the criteria for NF care. [NAME] County will provide or arrange for the following specialized mental health services. Goal: Resident will exhibit fewer mood symptoms of isolating self in the next 90 days and accept redirection and reassurance from staff and family. [Resident] will maintain active daily schedule per interests. Approaches: > Referral will be made to Senior Linkage Line for change of condition in accordance with MDS guidelines. > Referral will be made to Senior Linkage Line if resident has an inpatient psychiatric stay or equally intensive treatment. > Resident will see their psychologist and psychiatrist on regular basis. In an interview on 12/6/24 at 8:40 a.m., LTC (long term care) clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated the psycho-social care planning is completed by the social service department. LPN-A was unaware of any sessions with a psychologist or psychiatrist on regular basis. During an interview on 12/6/24 ay 8:49 a.m., the facility licensed social workers (LSW)-A and LSW-B stated the facility has arrangements with Associated Clinic or Psychology (ACP), however, R35 had never received services while in the facility. LSW-B stated in conversations with R35's family, they did not feel these services were necessary. LSW-B stated R35's Care plan should have been updated. In review of the facility's policy, entitled: Care Plan and Baseline Care Plan (last revised 10/14/22) indicted the following: 3. The interdisciplinary team, in conjunction with the resident, resident's family, significant other or resident representative, shall develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident. This comprehensive care plan will be in the [electronic health record] by day 21 of the stay or 7 days after completion of the comprehensive initial MDS, whichever comes first. 4. The resident care plan is constantly changing. It should be updated routinely in the electronic record to reflect resident's current condition. The resident care plan is reviewed for accuracy, updated with quarterly MDS review, and all other scheduled MDS assessments.
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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and implement interventions ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and implement interventions to ensure proper wheelchair positioning and prevent potential complications for 2 of 2 residents (R6 and R19) reviewed for wheelchair usage. Findings include: R6's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R6 had severe cognitive impairment. R6's care plan identified R6 had a self-care deficit and required assistance with transfers and occasionally with locomotion and utilized a wheelchair. During observation on 12/3/24 at 4:07 p.m., R6 was being pushed down hallway in her wheelchair with no foot pedal on. R6's left foot was dragging and bouncing on floor. Staff did not provide reminders to R6 to hold her foot up. During observation on 12/4/24 at 12:47 p.m., R6 was being pushed down hallway in her wheelchair with no foot pedal on. R6's left foot was dragging and bouncing on floor. Staff did not provide reminders to R6 to hold her foot up. During observation on 12/4/24 at 4:32 p.m., R6 was being pushed down hallway in her wheelchair with no foot pedal on. R6's left foot was dragging and bouncing on floor. Staff did not provide reminders to R6 to hold her foot up. During observation on 12/6/24 at 9:10 a.m., R6 was being pushed down hallway in her wheelchair with no foot pedal on. R6's left foot was dragging and bouncing on floor. Staff did not provide reminders to R6 to hold her foot up. R19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R19 had cognitive impairment. Further, R19's care plan identified R19 had a self-care deficit and required assistance with transfers and locomotion in a wheelchair to reach desired destinations and utilized a wheelchair. During observation on 12/2/24 at 11:36 a.m. R19 was being pushed down hallway in his wheelchair with no foot pedals on. R19's feet were dragging and bouncing on floor. Staff did not provide reminders to R19 to hold his feet up. During observation on 12/3/24 at 11:49 a.m. R19 was being pushed down hallway in his wheelchair with no foot pedals on. R19's feet were dragging and bouncing on floor. Staff did not provide reminders to R19 to hold his feet up. During observation on 12/3/24 at 4:52 p.m. R19 was being pushed down hallway in his wheelchair with no foot pedals on. R19's feet were dragging and bouncing on floor. Staff did not provide reminders to R19 to hold his feet up. During observation on 12/4/24 at 4:39 p.m., foot pedal was observed laying on top of R19's walker along the wall in his room. During observation on 12/6/24 at 9:08 a.m. R19 was being pushed down hallway in his wheelchair with no foot pedals on. R19's feet were dragging and bouncing on floor. Staff did not provide reminders to R19 to hold his feet up. During interview on 12/4/24 at 3:25 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated foot pedals are used as needed. NA-A stated R6 has one foot pedal that should be used if staff are assisting her with propelling wheelchair. NA-A stated R19 has foot pedals that staff use as needed. During interview on 12/6/24 at 9:01 a.m., trained medication aide (TMA)-A stated foot pedals should be used for any resident who had them and needed staff assistance transporting to and from any destination. TMA-A stated R6 does not have or use foot pedals. TMA-A stated R19 does not use foot pedals often. During interview on 12/6/24 at 9:19 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated foot pedals are used when the resident is not about to pick up their feet or needed assistant with keeping their feet off the floor. LPN-A stated foot pedals should be used for residents who are not able to keep their feet up when staff pushed the wheelchair to and from destinations. R6 did not use foot pedals. Foot pedals should be used for R19 if he was not picking his feet up. LPN-A stated she expected staff to utilize foot pedals in all observations noted above. LPN-A stated it was important for foot pedals to be used for safety when escorting residents in a wheelchair to and from destinations and to prevent injuries. During interview on 12/6/24 at 9:48 a.m., director of nursing (DON) stated that foot pedals are assessed upon admission and would be accessible when needed. DON stated foot pedals are not always on the wheelchair but are stored in resident's room to be used as needed. When a resident was exhibiting signs of not being able to keep feet held off floor when being transported to and from destinations, DON expected foot pedals be placed on wheelchair and used. She expected staff to use foot pedals in all observations noted above. DON stated it was important to use foot pedals on wheelchair during transport to prevent injury and that it was best practice. A wheelchair positioning policy was requested but was not provided.
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 interview and document review, the facility failed to follow a care planned intervention to prevent or reduce the risk ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to follow a care planned intervention to prevent or reduce the risk of aspiration for 1 of 2 residents (R7) reviewed for nutrition and needing supervision at meals. Findings include: R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R7 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s. R7's diagnoses included traumatic brain dysfunction, unspecified intracranial injury with loss of consciousness of unspecified duration, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, hemiplegia, traumatic brain injury, depression, polyneuropathy, dysphagia - oropharyngeal phase, dysarthria and anarthria, osteoarthritis, chronic kidney disease and bicipital tendinitis. MDS indicated R7 needed supervision or touching assistance with eating. R7's Nutrition Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 7/23/24, identified R7 was at risk for swallowing problems due to dysphagia, need for special diet or altered consistency which might not appeal to resident and the inability to perform self-care or mobility without significant physical assistance. CAA indicated R7 was currently on a pureed diet with mildly (nectar) thick liquids, facility to continue to provide diet per order and observe weights and intakes for changes. No referrals at this time, will proceed to care plan with goal to tolerate food and fluids served. R7's care plan, print date of 12/4/24, identified R7 required a pureed diet (in smooth applesauce consistency) with mildly thick liquids (nectar) related to dysphagia with instructions to thicken liquids more if coughing. R7 utilized adaptive equipment to increase independence at meals (lipped plate and Kennedy cup). Staff was to provide close supervision at his table to control pacing and remind him to stop and swallow when he started coughing, resident's preference was to sit at a table by himself, resident used bedside table to eat in dining room. Care plan also identified R7 had an alteration in activities of daily living (ADLs) related to history of traumatic brain injury with subsequent hemiplegia/hemiparesis affecting right dominant side, weakness, osteoarthritis, polyneuropathy, and pain, at risk for decline in ADLs. An intervention directed staff to provide close supervision with all meals for pacing assist and to remind resident to place silverware down between bites and monitor bite size. R7's physician orders, print date of 12/4/24, included orders to assist resident with feeding to control bite size and diet of puree food in smooth/applesauce consistency with mildly/nectar thick liquids (if coughing, thicken more). Diet order included special instructions of close supervision to control pacing and remind him to stop and swallow when he started coughing. R7's quarterly nutrition review progress note, dated 10/14/24, indicated staff was to thicken liquids more if R7 was coughing and that R7 required close supervision when eating. Progress note also indicated R7 was to receive assistance at meal to control bite size/pacing and remind him to stop and swallow when starts coughing. During observation on 12/3/24 at 12:04 p.m., R7 was seated at table in dining room drinking chocolate milk out of Kennedy cup. At 12:08 p.m., R7 received a lipped plate and was using his left hand to eat with regular silverware. R7's food was pureed and fluids were appropriately thickened. R7 was struggling to get food to his mouth due to not being able to flex left arm at the elbow. R7 took large spoonfuls of food and would take one spoonful after another without pacing between bites. At 12:26 p.m., R7 began coughing and had a non-productive cough that lasted several seconds. Staff did not intervene when R7 was coughing. No staff were present at his table and did not provide reminders to R7 throughout meal. Staff seated two tables away assisting another resident with eating. During observation on 12/3/24 at 5:08 p.m., R7 was seated at table in dining room and dietary staff delivered plate. R7's food was pureed and fluids were appropriately thickened. R7 was again struggling to get food to his mouth and had food dripping down face. Resident took large spoonfuls of food and would take one spoonful after another without pacing between bites. At 5:20 p.m., R7 continued sitting at table alone. At 5:36 p.m., R7 was assisted out of dining room by staff. No staff were present and did not provide reminders to R7 throughout meal. During observation on 12/4/24 at 12:08 p.m., R7 was sitting at table in dining room. R7's food was pureed and fluids were appropriately thickened. R7 was again struggling to get food to his mouth. At 12:16 p.m., R7 had food dripping down his face. At 12:17 p.m., R7 began coughing and had a non-productive cough. At 12:23 p.m., dietary staff went to R7's table, gathered dirty clothing protector and left table. At 12:24 p.m., staff asked R7 if he was finished, R7 nodded his head yes. At 12:28 p.m., staff assisted R7 out of dining room. No staff were present and did not provide reminders to R7 throughout meal. During interview on 12/4/24 at 3:27 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated R7 received pureed thickened foods due to difficulty swallowing. NA-A stated she was not aware of any other assistance R7 needed at mealtimes. During interview on 12/6/24 at 9:01 a.m., trained medication assistant (TMA)-A stated R7 was able to feed himself but needed close supervision which consisted of watching for coughing and monitoring bite size. TMA-A stated if R7 was taking too big of bites, staff were to provide reminders to R7 to slow down and watch bite size and staff may need to help with feeding as needed. During interview on 12/6/24 at 9:19 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated R7 was independent with eating but needed supervision with ensuring he is not eating too much and providing reminders to take smaller bites and to slow down. LPN-A stated R7 did not need any assistance with eating but if staff heard any coughing they would go and check on his. LPN-A confirmed R7 had an order for close monitoring when eating. LPN-A stated it was important to ensure close supervision was occurring during mealtimes to ensure that R7 did not choke or aspirate on food. LPN-A stated staff should be providing reminders regarding bite size and to slow down when eating. During interview on 12/6/24 at 9:55 a.m., director of nursing (DON) stated R7 needed close supervision with meals as ordered and staff should be in close proximity to R7, so they are able to offer reminders as warranted. DON stated it was important to follow these orders/instructions as it was ordered for R7's safety and to work on R7 controlling his pace and reducing the risk for aspiration. The facility Feeding of residents by staff policy, dated 3/27/24, indicated residents unable to feed themselves will be provided with assistance per their care plan. Staff sit at eye level with resident and offer small bite-sized portions on the fork or spoon at a regular rate.
Oct 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

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 3 of 3 residents (R36, R19, R39) were compre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 residents (R36, R19, R39) were comprehensively assessed for safety and ability to self-administer medications who were reviewed for medication administration. Findings include: R36 R36's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she was cognitively intact and had diagnoses which included lung disease, heart failure and high blood pressure. Identified R36 required set-up and supervision assistance with eating and oral cares and received hospice services. R36's care plan dated 8/12/23, indicated R36 had a potential alteration in respiratory status related to lung disease, and directed staff to administer medications as ordered. Identified staff were to monitor for changes in respiratory status including signs of distress and shortness of breath. The care plan lacked indication R36 was able to self-administer medications. R36's Self-Administration of Medication (SAM) observation dated 7/14/23, indicated R36 did not self-administer medications, nor did R36 want to self-administer medications. R36's Physician Order Report dated 10/1/23 to 10/31/23, printed 10/18/23, included ipratropium-albuterol solution (to prevent wheezing and shortness of breath) for nebulization (where the liquid medication is placed into a machine which turns it into a mist so it can be inhaled into the lungs); 0.5 milligrams (mg)-3 mg (2.5 mg base)/3 milliliters (mL). The orders lacked an order for R36 to self-administer her medications. During an observation on 10/16/23 at 7:12 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A added R36's ipratropium-albuterol solution to the nebulizer cup, attached it to the nebulizer mask and placed the mask on R36's face affixing it with an elastic band around R36's head. LPN-A turned on the machine, informed R36 they would be back in a little bit, left the room, returned to the medication cart and dispensed and administered medications to another resident down the hallway. At 7:26 p.m. LPN-A returned to R36, turned the machine off and removed R36's mask. During an interview on 10/16/23 at 7:26 p.m., LPN-A stated staff set up the treatment for R36 and confirmed the staff left the room and allowed R36 to complete the nebulizer treatment without staff supervision. LPN-A stated staff knew the residents well and identified when a resident could self-administer medications by observing them or by reviewing the care plan. LPN-A indicated she was not aware if there was a SAM completed for R36. R19 R19's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated he was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of one staff for dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Identified R19 received pain medication as needed. R19's ICD-10 Diagnosis Report - Clinical dated 10/18/23, included R19 had cellulitis of both the left and right legs, diabetes, and morbid obesity. R19's care plan dated 9/26/23, indicated R19 wished to self-administer oral medications after staff set-up as appropriate per evaluation and included R19 was safe to keep TUMS at bedside however did not address any topical creams. R19's SAM dated 9/26/23, indicated he wanted to self-administer some medications, and was safe to keep TUMS at bedside. The assessment did not address topical creams. R19's Physician Order Report dated 10/1/23 to 10/31/23, printed 10/18/23, included 1% diclofenac sodium gel (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used to treat mild to moderate pain), four grams, apply topically once per day at bedtime and twice per day as needed to left hip and left knee. The orders lacked an order for R19 to self-administer his ointments. During an observation and interview on 10/16/23 at 4:12 p.m., R19 sat in his wheelchair in his room with both legs wrapped in ace bandages and a Band-Aid on the side of his left knee. R19 stated he was having a lot of hip and knee pain and just returned from the doctor where he received injections to reduce the pain. A nearly empty tube of diclofenac sodium gel sat in a basin on the nightstand in front of him within reach. R19 stated he applied it himself, usually before he got out of bed and indicated it was effective for a couple of hours. R39 R39's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired and had diagnoses which included stroke and aphasia (difficulty communicating). Identified R39 required limited assistance of one staff for personal hygiene and toileting. R39's care plan dated 7/17/23, indicated he had potential alteration in skin integrity, included treat per provider orders and lotion as needed to moisturize skin. R39's SAM dated 8/14/23, indicated R39 did not self-administer medications nor did R39 wish to self-administer medications. R39's Physician Order Report dated 10/1/23 to 10/31/23, printed 10/18/23, included menthol-zinc oxide ointment (skin protectant), 0.44-20.6%, apply topically to skin soiling/saturation every shift and as needed, and miconazole nitrate powder (an anti-fungal), 2% (percent), apply topically to the skin and skin folds every shift and as needed. R39's orders did not include topical menthol ointment (Vicks VapoRub). In addition, the orders lacked an order for R39 to self-administer medications. During an observation and interview on 10/16/23 at 2:23 p.m., R39 was lying in bed and had dry, flaky patches of skin on his nose. R39 stated staff did not apply any treatment to the flaky patches, pointed to his side table which contained a tube of general barrier skin protectant cream and a tube of menthol-zinc oxide ointment. In addition, a container of anti-fungal powder was located on top of his night stand next to the table, within reach. During an observation on 10/16/23 at 5:50 p.m., R39 self-propelled in his wheelchair from his room into the hallway and had a thick white opaque product covering his face. LPN-B walked by him, noted the cream, and asked R39 why his face was white. R39 stated he applied some cream to his dry skin on his face. LPN-B accompanied R39 back to his room to remove the cream. During an interview on 10/17/23 at 5:16 p.m., LPN-B stated she walked by R39 the previous day and noticed his face appeared powdered and white. LPN-B asked R39 what was on his face and he stated he applied moisturizing lotion to it. LPN-B was not aware of what cream he had applied and stated the product was caked on so she washed it off and gave him a bottle of moisturizing lotion. LPN-B reviewed R39's medical record and confirmed he had a cream and a powder ordered for his bottom however had nothing prescribed for his face. In addition, LPN-B confirmed there were no orders for R39 for self-administration of medications. During an observation on 10/18/23 at 7:43 a.m., one jar of topical menthol ointment was located on top of R39's bedside table. During an observation and interview on 10/18/23 at 10:14 a.m., R39 was lying in bed watching television with his bedside table next to him. A jar of topical menthol ointment approximately 75% (percent) full remained on the table within reach. R39 stated he used the ointment daily and put it on his lips, nose, and sometimes in his mouth. During an interview on 10/17/23 at 5:16 p.m., LPN-B stated SAM's were completed upon admission and reviewed at care conferences to ensure appropriateness, however there were no residents on the unit who could self-administer medications at that time. LPN-B indicated when a resident received nebulizer treatments and was assessed as safe, staff could set up the treatment, leave the resident while the treatment proceeded, and come back to check on them later however staff needed to stay close by. In addition, LPN-B stated medicated creams should not be self-administered without a SAM which identified the resident was safe to self-administer. LPN-B indicated it was important to assess residents to allow them to be as independent as possible and to identify any potential safety risks. Upon review of R19's medical record, LPN-B confirmed he had a prescription for a topical pain cream for his left hip and left knee, however his SAM did not identify he was able to keep it at bedside and apply it himself. Further, LPN-B stated R19 was unable to reach his own hip to apply it. Upon review of R36's medical record, LPN-B confirmed the record lacked a SAM which identified R36 could administer her own nebulizer treatments without supervision. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 10:32 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated residents were asked if they wanted to self-administer medications upon admission, and if so, a SAM was completed and re-evaluated quarterly to assure they were safe to self-administer. RN-A indicated when appropriate, the provider wrote an order, and it was added to the care plan. RN-A stated she expected staff to remove any unapproved medications found in a resident room, place it in the treatment cart and notify her so she could complete a SAM. RN-A confirmed SAM's had not been completed on R39, R19 and R36. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 11:26 a.m., director of nursing (DON) stated SAM's were expected to be completed upon admission to determine if residents wanted, and/or were able to safely self-administer their own medications. DON indicated when the results of the SAM determined a resident was safe to self-administer medications, staff informed the provider who approved it via orders. The facility policy titled Self Administration of Medication policy dated 2/20/23, indicated when a resident wished to self-administer medication, the nurse would complete the applicable assessment in the electronic health record. If determined appropriate, staff would obtain an order from the provider, and it would be added to the care plan. When a nebulizer treatment was set up for the resident and the resident was left unattended with the treatment running, that was considered a self-administration of medications.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Minnesota.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
  • • 41% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 6 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc.'s CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC. an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc. Staffed?

CMS rates LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC.'s staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc.?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC. during 2023 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 5 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc.?

LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC. is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by CASSIA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 56 certified beds and approximately 52 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BUFFALO, Minnesota.

How Does Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc. Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC.'s overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc.?

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 Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc. Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC. 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Minnesota. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc. Stick Around?

LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC. has a staff turnover rate of 41%, 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 Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc. Ever Fined?

LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC. 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 Lake Ridge Of Buffalo, Inc. on Any Federal Watch List?

LAKE RIDGE CARE CENTER OF BUFFALO, INC. 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.