Chosen Valley Care Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Chosen Valley Care Center in Chatfield, Minnesota has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good choice but not without its flaws. It ranks #15 out of 337 nursing homes in Minnesota, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #1 out of 6 in Fillmore County, meaning it is the best option locally. The facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 6 in 2023 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is rated 5 out of 5 stars with a low turnover rate of 24%, indicating that staff are dedicated and familiar with the residents, although the RN coverage is average. There have been some concerning incidents, including a critical failure to ensure a resident received necessary medication, resulting in missed doses, as well as issues with staff not following proper hand hygiene while serving food, which poses infection risks. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and a solid reputation, families should be aware of the facility's recent challenges in care practices.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Minnesota
- #15/337
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 24% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 24 points below Minnesota's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $8,193 in fines. Higher than 53% of Minnesota facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 56 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Minnesota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Low Staff Turnover (24%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (24%)
24 points below Minnesota average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Jul 2024
4 deficiencies
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 record review, the facility failed to resume restorative services for 1 of 2 residents (R4)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 monitor orthostatic blood pressures during the use ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
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 arrange dental services after a non-urgent/routine dental referra...
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 record review, the facility failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
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 medications were administered in accordance with physicia...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 resident's current wishes for resuscitation status we...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, interview and document review, the facility failed to follow care plan interventions to prevent falls for 1 of 4 residents (R42) reviewed for accident hazards.
Findings include:...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure menus and individual resident food plans met the nutritional needs and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (R3) reviewed...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation on 8/23/23 at 8:20 a.m., dietary aide (DA)-A served two unidentified residents, one male, one female, with...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
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
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to report allegations of verbal/mental abuse to the State Agency within two hours for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for allegations of mental...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Someone could have died · 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 its procedure for ensuring an order had been received afte...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
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 follow their grievance process for missing personal ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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 follow individualized care plan interventions to pre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure an individualized toileting program was follo...
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**
On 8/18/21, at 2:25 p.m. a tour of the medication room containing the E-Kit medication storage cabinet was conducted with licen...
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** R66's face sheet indicated diagnoses of other chronic pain, pain in right shoulder and low back pain.
R66's quarterly MDS dated...
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 perform hand hygiene when performing wound care trea...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R66
R66's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated R66 had no cognitive impairment.
R66 was transferred to the emergency ...
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
- • 24% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 24 points below Minnesota's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
About This Facility
What is Chosen Valley Care Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Chosen Valley Care Center 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 Chosen Valley Care Center Staffed?
CMS rates Chosen Valley Care Center's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 24%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Chosen Valley Care Center?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at Chosen Valley Care Center during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 16 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 Chosen Valley Care Center?
Chosen Valley Care Center 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 78 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CHATFIELD, Minnesota.
How Does Chosen Valley Care Center Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, Chosen Valley Care Center's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (24%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Chosen Valley Care Center?
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 Chosen Valley Care Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Chosen Valley Care Center 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 5-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 Chosen Valley Care Center Stick Around?
Staff at Chosen Valley Care Center tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 24%, the facility is 21 percentage points below the Minnesota average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 19%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Chosen Valley Care Center Ever Fined?
Chosen Valley Care Center has been fined $8,193 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Minnesota average of $33,161. 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 Chosen Valley Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Chosen Valley Care 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.