JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Johnson Memorial Hospital & Home in Dawson, Minnesota has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #180 out of 337 facilities statewide, placing it in the bottom half, but it is the top choice among the two options available in Lac Qui Parle County. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with reported issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a perfect score of 5 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 40%, which is slightly below the state average, suggesting that staff are experienced and familiar with the residents. On the downside, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident who did not receive timely pain relief after a fall, and concerns about insulin administration training for staff, which could pose risks for residents needing diabetes care. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing, potential care gaps raise important questions for families considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Minnesota
- #180/337
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% 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 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Minnesota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 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 (40%)
8 points below Minnesota average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Minnesota average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Minnesota avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
8 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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 14 residents (R47) care plan was revised to identify that she had an actual elopement event.
Findings include:
Review of the r...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility failed to administer insulin according to physician orders and manufacturers instruction for 1 of 1 (R106) resident...
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
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to comprehensively assess and identify target behaviors or symptoms and non-pharmacological interventions for scheduled antidepressant and an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to follow manufacturer's instructions and label insuli...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure all 9 licensed nurses (registered nurse (RN)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement 1 of 1 facility assessment and ensure the identified number of staff deemed required to provide care and services to residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data, during 1 of 1 qu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate oversight by the infection preventionist (IP) and follow up when multiple departments heads consistently failed to rep...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
1 deficiency
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
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 interview and document review the facility failed to assess and monitor injuries after a fall, provide pain relieving t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to notify the county (designated state mental health authority (SMHA)) when 1 of 1 resident (R2) had new on-set of mental illness since admi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 revise the care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R20) with ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
8 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to report potential abuse within 2 hours for 1 of 3 residents (R27. who was identified with a bruise on his abdomen of unknown origin.
Findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview, and document review identified the facility failed to revise the care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R17) with known diagnoses of anxiety and depression who was currently i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0745
(Tag F0745)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide medically related social services and/or obtain mental health counseling and notify the provider for 1 of 1 resident (R17) whose ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 dietary personnel (dietary aide (DA)-A) followed appropriate infection control technique while preparing and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to have an integrated hospice care plan and educate facility staff on what services hospice was to provide, and what services ...
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 5 of 5 residents (R7, R16, R17, R26, and R45) were appropr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure data submitted to the QAPI committee was analyzed and documented to ensure areas identified had oversight for their perspective ou...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0944
(Tag F0944)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide mandatory training on the facility ' s QAPI Program that included the goals and various elements of the program or how the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 2 resident (R1) was treated in a dignified manner while being provided assistance with bed mobility and locomotio...
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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
- • 40% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Minnesota, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home Staffed?
CMS rates JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 19 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home?
JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 56 certified beds and approximately 53 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in DAWSON, Minnesota.
How Does Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, 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 Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home?
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 Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home Stick Around?
JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home Ever Fined?
JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME 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 Johnson Memorial Hosp & Home on Any Federal Watch List?
JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP & HOME 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.