First Care Living Center
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
First Care Living Center in Fosston, Minnesota has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall performance. It ranks #171 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, placing it in the bottom half, and #3 out of 4 in Polk County, meaning there is only one local option that fares better. The facility's trend is worsening, with the number of identified issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, achieving a 5/5 star rating with a turnover rate of 36%, which is lower than the state average, indicating that staff members are likely to stay longer and build relationships with residents. However, the facility has been fined $83,746, which is concerning and higher than 95% of Minnesota facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents of concern include critical failures in ensuring safe transfers for residents using mechanical lifts, which resulted in falls and injuries, indicating a serious risk for residents. Additionally, the facility failed to provide up-to-date education on immunizations to several residents, which could potentially jeopardize their health. While the staffing situation is strong, the combination of financial penalties and safety issues raises significant red flags for families considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Minnesota
- #171/337
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 36% turnover. Near Minnesota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $83,746 in fines. Higher than 72% of Minnesota facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 102 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 ⚠ Watch
- 16 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 (36%)
12 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
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
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 complete a significant change in status assessment (...
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 interview and document review, the facility failed to revise the care plan to remove restorative nursing ambulation pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess for a decline in activities i...
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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure range of motion (ROM) was completed in accordance as care ...
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** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide medications as ordered for 1 of 5 residents ...
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 enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were imple...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
2 deficiencies
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 perform routine monitoring of a wound to promote hea...
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 for 2 of 5 residents (R20, R29)...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
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 ensure safe transfer while utilizing a mechanical lif...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
5 deficiencies
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 accurately code the hospice status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to follow care planned interventions to prevent falls f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to assess respiratory status and determine efficacy of...
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 proper catheter care was provided to prevent ...
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 provide the most recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) educati...
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 evaluate and analyze hazards following a resident fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review the facility failed ensure timely reporting of an allegation of abuse to the state agency...
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
- • 36% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $83,746 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $83,746 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Minnesota. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (31/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is First Care Living Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns First Care Living Center 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 First Care Living Center Staffed?
CMS rates First Care Living Center's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at First Care Living Center?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at First Care Living Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 14 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates First Care Living Center?
First Care Living Center is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by ESSENTIA HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 24 residents (about 48% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FOSSTON, Minnesota.
How Does First Care Living Center Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, First Care Living Center's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (36%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting First Care Living 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 First Care Living Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, First Care Living Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 First Care Living Center Stick Around?
First Care Living Center has a staff turnover rate of 36%, 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 First Care Living Center Ever Fined?
First Care Living Center has been fined $83,746 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Minnesota average of $33,916. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is First Care Living Center on Any Federal Watch List?
First Care Living 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.