GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown in Luverne, Minnesota has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns regarding the quality of care provided at the facility. It ranks #233 out of 337 in Minnesota, placing it in the bottom half of all state facilities, and #3 out of 3 in Rock County, meaning there are no better local options available. The facility's trend appears stable, with 7 issues identified in both 2024 and 2025, but it still has a high turnover rate of 57% compared to the state average of 42%, which may affect continuity of care. Additionally, the facility has imposed fines totaling $62,045, which is higher than 93% of Minnesota facilities and raises concerns about repeated compliance problems. While RN coverage is average, the facility has been noted for critical incidents, including a failure to properly assess and manage fall risks, resulting in a resident sustaining severe injuries. There were also concerns about insufficient staffing to meet the needs of residents, which could affect their overall well-being, and issues with food safety in the kitchen, such as expired items not being removed. Overall, families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Minnesota
- #233/337
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $62,045 in fines. Higher than 83% of Minnesota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 59 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Minnesota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 34 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Minnesota average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
11pts above Minnesota avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
9 points above Minnesota average of 48%
The Ugly 34 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview the facility failed to ensure resident mail was delivered consistently on Saturdays for 2 of 2 residents (R18, and R25) who voiced concerns with mail delivery. This deficient practi...
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, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (R11) care plan was revised to show meal preferences.
Findings include:
R11's 12/16/24, significan...
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 administer 1 of 1 medication (levothyroxine) according...
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 interview and record review the facility failed to complete an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) for 1 of 1 re...
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
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control practices for 1 of 2 residents (R2) indwelling catheter.
Findings include:
R2's, 12/1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0949
(Tag F0949)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 8 staff received newly hired staff nursing assistant (NA-D) received initial training on Alzheimer's disease or related disord...
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 ensure 5 of 5 residents (R4, R15, R18, R32 and R91's...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
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 utilize enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 1 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
2 deficiencies
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 compressively assess falls for root cause, implement...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to complete a comprehensive bladder assessment and develop an individua...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
4 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 F0558
(Tag F0558)
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 accommodate the needs for 1 of 1 residents (R1) who 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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
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 injury of unknown was consistently assesse...
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
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 ensure an injury of unknown was consistently assesse...
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
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 an altered diet as prescribed for 1 of 2 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
15 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
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 adequate and required information was documented and commu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
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 provide a written copy of the bed hold policy for 1 of 4 resident...
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 record review the facility failed to revise the care plan for 1 of 1 resident (R5) after being updated multiple times by family of R5's preference to wear a brassie...
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 provide activities of daily living (ADLs) including...
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
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure restorative services were completed to maint...
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
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident's (R1) oxygen had been administered per physician orders.
Findings include:
R1's August 2023, admis...
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 individualize the care plan to include target behaviors for psychotropic medication use for 3 of 5 (R1, R38, and R40) residents.
Finding...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure staff followed the facility policy and protocols to verify narcotic count to prevent potential diversion for 1 of 1 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 required members (infection preventionist) and/or thier designee attended and documented the attendance at the quarterly Qu...
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** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to follow proper infection control practice for 1 of 1...
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 3 of 5 residents (R5, R38, and R41) were appropriately vac...
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
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 sufficient staff to provide and meet the asse...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
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 mark/date opened containers of food stored in one o...
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
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the walk-in freezer vent was maintained in a safe and functional manner. This had the potential to affect all 47 res...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to report an allegation of physical abuse to the State Agency (SA), ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) CMS-10055 for 1 of 3 residents (R248) reviewed.
Findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 potential neglect to the State Agency (SA) within 2 hours of discovery of the allegation for 2 of 5 residents (R245 and R247) revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
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 1 of 1 resident (R36) and/or the resident's representative...
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
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure an Arkray facility glucometer was appropriately disinfected between use during 1 of 1 observations of blood glucose ...
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?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $62,045 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 34 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $62,045 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Minnesota. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (23/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Minnesota, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown Staffed?
CMS rates GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Minnesota average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown?
State health inspectors documented 34 deficiencies at GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 33 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 Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown?
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 51 certified beds and approximately 42 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LUVERNE, Minnesota.
How Does Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN 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 2-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 Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown Stick Around?
Staff turnover at GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Minnesota average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown Ever Fined?
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN has been fined $62,045 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Minnesota average of $33,699. 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 Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane Brown on Any Federal Watch List?
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY - MARY JANE BROWN 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.