Madison Healthcare Services
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Madison Healthcare Services has received a Trust Grade of C, indicating an average performance that places it in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #186 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, which means it is in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Lac Qui Parle County, indicating limited local competition. The facility is showing an improving trend, with issues decreasing from seven in 2024 to three in 2025. Staffing is a key strength, with a top rating of 5 out of 5 stars and a low turnover rate of 24%, compared to the Minnesota average of 42%. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $19,786, higher than 78% of Minnesota facilities, and less registered nurse coverage than 92% of state facilities, which could impact resident care. Specific incidents of concern include a critical finding where a resident was allowed to smoke unsupervised while on oxygen, posing a severe fire risk. Additionally, there were failures to offer essential vaccinations to residents and to ensure staff received proper training on Alzheimer’s care, which could affect overall resident safety and health. While there are notable strengths in staffing, these weaknesses raise questions about safety and quality of care.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Minnesota
- #186/337
- 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 ✓ Good
- $19,786 in fines. Lower than most Minnesota facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Minnesota. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 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
Near Minnesota average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
3 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 document review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was accessible for 1 of 1 resi...
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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 have a process in place to ensure resident provider...
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 perform ongoing monitoring and wound care for 1 of 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to follow their policy and complete an Abnormal Involuntary Movement (AIMS) assessment for 1 of 5 residents (R31) who had been...
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 record review, the facility failed to ensure a portable oxygen (O2) tank (E-cylinder) was safely secured for 1 of 4 residents (R21).
Findings include:
Observation...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0949
(Tag F0949)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure 5 of 8 staff (administrator, director of nursing (DON), registered nurse (RN)-A, RN-C, and trained medication aide (TMA)-A ) receiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
4 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
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 the resident safety from accident and hazard...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 2 of 3 residents (R11 and R30).
Finding...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment related to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for 1 of 1 (R6) resident.
Findings include:
R6's 1/0...
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 offer and/or administer the most recent Centers for Disease Contr...
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
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 interview the facility failed to follow the care plan for a fall interventi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
5 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review the facility failed to review the Initial Pre-admission Screening (PAS) for accuracy for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview and document review the facility failed to implement care plans for 2 of 2 residents ( R25 and R30).
Findings include:
R25's 2/15/23, quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) a...
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** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to identify indications for the continued use of an as...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure hair nets were accessible in 1 of 1 kitchenette located in the Harvest dining area and had the potential to effect 17 of 44 residents w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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 and interview the facility failed to ensure transmission based precautions (TBP) were followed by 1 of 1 di...
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.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $19,786 in fines. Above average for Minnesota. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Madison Healthcare Services's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Madison Healthcare Services 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 Madison Healthcare Services Staffed?
CMS rates Madison Healthcare Services'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 Madison Healthcare Services?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at Madison Healthcare Services during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 15 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 Madison Healthcare Services?
Madison Healthcare Services 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 51 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MADISON, Minnesota.
How Does Madison Healthcare Services Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, Madison Healthcare Services's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (24%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Madison Healthcare Services?
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 Madison Healthcare Services Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Madison Healthcare Services 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 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 Madison Healthcare Services Stick Around?
Staff at Madison Healthcare Services tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 24%, the facility is 22 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 25%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Madison Healthcare Services Ever Fined?
Madison Healthcare Services has been fined $19,786 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Minnesota average of $33,277. 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 Madison Healthcare Services on Any Federal Watch List?
Madison Healthcare Services 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.