McIntosh Senior Living

600 NORTHEAST RIVERSIDE AVENUE, MCINTOSH, MN 56556 (218) 563-2715
Non profit - Corporation 45 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#59 of 337 in MN
Last Inspection: January 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

McIntosh Senior Living has received a Trust Grade of A, indicating excellent quality and highly recommended care. It ranks #59 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among the four nursing homes in Polk County. However, the facility's trend is concerning as it has worsened from one issue in 2023 to two issues in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of only 21%, significantly lower than the state average. On the downside, the facility has less RN coverage than 99% of Minnesota facilities, which is troubling as RNs play a critical role in resident care. Specific incidents include a resident sustaining a fracture due to improper transfer methods, and failures to report an outbreak of gastrointestinal symptoms among multiple residents, which could potentially affect everyone in the facility.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Minnesota
#59/337
Top 17%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
21% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 27 points below Minnesota's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Minnesota. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 3 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (21%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (21%)

    27 points below Minnesota average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

No Significant Concerns Identified

This facility shows no red flags. Among Minnesota's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.

The Ugly 3 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 ensure residents were free from accidents for 1 of 3 residents (R1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accidents for 1 of 3 residents (R1) when R1, who was care planned for the use of a mechanical lift, was transferred on multiple occasions using a pivot transfer by staff and the facility beautician. This resulted in actual harm for R1 who sustained a fracture related to improper transfers from staff. R1's admission Record indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included Stroke, weakness and joint stiffness. Diagnosis added 8/15/25, included osteoporosis and fracture.R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated R1 had not displayed rejection of care behaviors and was dependent on staff for transfers.R1's care plan dated 5/30/25, identified cognitive and communication impairments. The care plan identified impaired physical mobility related to a stroke with right sided hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body). The care plan directed staff to assist R1 to transfer using a mechanical stand device and two staff. The care plan was updated 8/12/25, to include a fracture of her left knee and directed staff to transfer using a mechanical stand and assist R1 with locomotion in wheelchair until she could use her left leg to self-propel again.R1's Progress Notes indicated the following:-8/8/25, R1 had been complaining of left knee pain since the previous evening. R1 had been guarding her knee, unable to manipulate it to a flat position and became upset when staff moved her leg. When asked if her pain was bad enough to make her cry, R1 shook her head yes. R1 had been moaning and grunting due to knee pain and shook her head yes when asked if it hurt when standing for transfer into bed the previous night.-8/9/25, R1 continued to have pain and swelling to her knee. -8/11/25, Physician updated due to continued knee pain. R1 had been tearful at times. Orders received for X-ray. Later in the shift, R1 left for CT (computed tomography) scan to knee. -8/11/25, R1 returned to the facility. Diagnosis of closed non-displaced fracture (a type of bone break where the bone cracks or breaks, but the pieces remain aligned and don't shift out of place) of condoyle (the two rounded prominences at the distal end of the thigh bone that articulate with the shin bone to form the knee joint) of left femur and had a splint in place. -8/12/25, Staff spoke with the physician who indicated R1 had severe osteoporosis that could have contributed to the fracture during the pivot transfers. R1 currently non-weight bearing and had a brace to be worn for six weeks. During interview on 8/19/25 at 12:02 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated their investigation identified five staff members identified to have transferred R1 without the use of the mechanical stand as care planned previous to her injury. During interview on 8/19/25 at 12:11 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated R1 needed to go to the beauty shop, and she and another staff member had performed a pivot transfer from R1's recliner to her wheelchair. NA-A said three total staff were in the room at the time. NA-A stated staff had a care sheet that identified how the residents were supposed to be transferred. During interview on 8/19/25 at 12:18 p.m., NA-B stated she had assisted NA-A to transfer R1 without following the care plan and stated it was not the first time she had performed a pivot transfer with R1. NA-B said R1's care plan indicated staff were to transfer using a mechanical stand. During interview on 8/19/25 at 12:30 p.m., NA-C stated staff, including herself, had been performing pivot transfers for R1 but not all the time. NA-C said she was not sure why but said they should not have. NA-C said R1's care plan directed staff to use a mechanical stand for transfers. During interview on 8/19/25, at 12:42 p.m., the facility beautician (B)-A stated R1 needed to get from her wheelchair to the salon chair and said NA-D came into the salon and attempted to transfer R1 by herself but said she was not strong enough. B-A stated she assisted NA-D to pivot transfer R1 to the chair. B-A said after she was finished with R1's hair, no staff were around so she placed her arms around R1, like a bear hug, under her arms and transferred her back into her wheelchair. B-A said after she got into the wheelchair R1 started to propel herself to the dining room but said another staff brought R1 back to use the bathroom before assisting her to the dining room. B-A said she thought since NA-D was going to transfer R1 by herself it was okay to assist with just one person.During interview on 8/19/25, at 3:02 p.m., the DON stated after they discovered staff had not been following the care plan for transfers with R1, they had immediately educated the NA's and B-A and initiated education with all staff that provide care and transfer residents. The DON stated they had also initiated audits of transfers and educated B-A she was not to perform any resident transfers. The DON said the physician said R1 had severe osteoporosis and felt the pivot transfers along with her diagnosis contributed to the fracture.Facility Policy Safet-patient-handling Program dated 3/19/23, indicated it was the policy of the facility that when residents required assistance to move residents, that assistance was provided in a manner safe for the residents. Specifically, mechanical lifting equipment and/or other patient moving aides.Facility Policy Providing Cares as Outlined in the Resident Care Plan dated 4/11/23, indicated all employees must follow each resident's plan of care exactly as written. Care must be delivered by the interventions, safety precautions, and restrictions listed in the plan of care.Prior to the start of the survey, on 8/12/25, the facility had initiated disciplinary action and education related to following the plan of care. Further, the facility had initiated compliance audits to ensure staff were following the plan of care. The education and audits were verified through interview and document review.
Jan 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to report an outbreak of nausea, vomiting and/or diarrhea for 6 of 6 residents (R38, R9, R36, R13, R35, R33) to the Minnesota D...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to report an outbreak of nausea, vomiting and/or diarrhea for 6 of 6 residents (R38, R9, R36, R13, R35, R33) to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. Findings include: The facility provided undated and untitled symptom tracker identified the following: - 1/23/25, R38 developed symptoms of upset stomach and emesis and was immediately placed on contact precautions and attempted to keep the resident in her room. R38 was tested and negative for Influenza A and B, RSV, and COVID-19 (respiratory panel). - 1/25/25, R9 developed upset stomach, diarrhea and low grade temperature. R9 was immediately placed on contact precautions, tested and was negative for respiratory panel. - 1/25/25, R36 developed upset stomach, diarrhea and low grade temperature. R36 was immediately placed on contact precautions, tested and was negative for respiratory panel. - 1/26/25, R13 developed emesis, loose stools and low grade temperature. R13 was immediately placed on contact precautions, tested and was negative for respiratory panel. - 1/26/25, R33 developed dry heaves, vomiting and diarrhea. R33 was immediately placed on contact precautions, had a negative COVID-19 test and respiratory panel was pending. - 1/26/25, R35 developed symptoms of emesis and low grade fever. R35 was immediately placed on contact precautions, however, did not have a respiratory panel because she displayed the same symptoms of the other residents and they were negative On 1/27/25 at 3:36 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated there were several residents that developed symptoms of gastrointestinal (GI) illness over the weekend and were placed on contact precautions. The DON stated the facility follows MDH guidance for reporting communicable diseases. There were no staff that had developed symptoms. The DON further stated she had not reported the outbreak to MDH because she thought it was a simple GI illness because symptoms were resolving or resolved, and because the illness was in the community and was just the stomach flu. The facility Communicable Disease Reporting policy dated 8/26/24, identified communicable diseases shall be reported to the MDH and referred to the form Diseases Reportable to the MDH. The 2024-2025 MDH Norovirus Information for Long Term Care Facilities identified, individual cases of norovirus infection are not reportable in Minnesota. However, possible outbreaks of multiple cases with norovirus-like symptoms must be reported. They can be reported to the health department by phone or email.
Jun 2023 1 deficiency
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · 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 the restraint section of the Minimum Data Set...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the restraint section of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded for 5 of 6 residents (R26, R37, R9, R25, R34) reviewed for MDS accuracy. Findings include: R26's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R26 was cognitively intact and required supervision with bed mobility. The bilateral bed rails/grab bars were identified to be used daily as a restraint. R26 Restraint/Assist Rail Evaluation dated 5/23/23, identified R26 used bilateral bed rails/grab bars for bed mobility and transfers. The bed rails/grab bars were not a restraint. On 6/6/23 at 9:10 a.m., R26's bed was observed to have bilateral bed rails/grab bars attached to their bed. R26 used the bilateral grab bars to turn and reposition during morning cares. During an interview on 6/6/23 at 9:10 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A identified R26 used the bed rails/grab bars for repositioning and turning in bed and they were not a restraint. R37's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R37 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with bed mobility. The bilateral bed rails/grab bars were identified to be used less than daily as a restraint. R37's Restraint/Assist Rail Evaluation dated 5/24/23, identified R37 used bilateral bed rails/grab bars for bed mobility and transfers. The bed rails/grab bars were not a restraint. On 6/7/23 at 10:30 a.m., bilateral bed rails/grab bars were observed to be secured to R37's bed. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 12:42 p.m., R37 stated he used the bed rails/grab bars when in bed for bed mobility and positioning. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 10:22 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated the bed rails/grab bars on R37 and R26's beds were not a restraint. The bed rails/grab bars were used for bed mobility and turning/repositioning for both R37 and R26. R9's admission MDS dated [DATE], identified R9 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with bed mobility. The bilateral bed rails/grab bars were identified to be used less than daily as a restraint. R9's Restraint/Assist Rail Evaluation dated 4/26/23, identified R9's bilateral quarter assist rails were used to aid with bed mobility and were not a restraint. During interview on 6/7/23 at 7:37 a.m., R9 stated she used the grab bars every day to help get in/out of bed and to move around while in bed. During interview on 6/7/23 at 7:27 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-B stated R9 had bilateral upper grab bars on the bed and used them daily to assist with turning side to side while in bed. R25's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified R25 was not cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with bed mobility. The bilateral bed rails/grab bars were identified to be used daily as a restraint. R25's Restraint/Assist Rail Evaluation dated 3/29/23, identified R25 utilized a quarter bed side rail to aide with mobility. The assessment identified the rail was not a restraint R34's annual MDS dated [DATE], identified R34 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with bed mobility. The bilateral bed rails/grab bars were identified to be used less than daily as a restraint. R34's Restraint/Assist Rail Evaluation dated 3/28/23, identified R34 used a left quarter assist rail to aid with bed mobility and transfers. The assessment identified the rail was used as an aide for R34 to reposition and transfer independently and was not a restraint. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 1:03 PM, the director of nursing (DON) stated the facility was coding bed rails/grab bars in the restraint section on the MDS. The DON was not aware that this section in the MDS was referring to the use of grab bars/bed rails in the capacity of them being a restraint. The DON would correct all the inaccurate MDS assessments as none of the residents who utilized grab bars were being restrained by the grab bars. The MDS3.0 RAI Manual Version 1.17.1 October 2019, identified bed rails included any combination of partial or full rails (e.g., one-side half-rail, one-side full rail, two-sided half-rails or quarter-rails, rails along the side of the bed that block three-quarters to the whole length of the mattress from top to bottom, etc.). Include in this category enclosed bed systems. Bed rails used as positioning devices should not be coded as a restraint. If the use of bed rails (quarter-, half- or three quarter, one or both, etc.) meet the definition of a physical restraint even though they may improve the resident's mobility in bed, the nursing home must code their use as a restraint at P0100A
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Minnesota.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
  • • 21% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 27 points below Minnesota's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 3 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Mcintosh Senior Living's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns McIntosh Senior Living 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 Mcintosh Senior Living Staffed?

CMS rates McIntosh Senior Living's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 21%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Mcintosh Senior Living?

State health inspectors documented 3 deficiencies at McIntosh Senior Living during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 1 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Mcintosh Senior Living?

McIntosh Senior Living 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 45 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 98% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MCINTOSH, Minnesota.

How Does Mcintosh Senior Living Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, McIntosh Senior Living's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (21%) 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 Mcintosh Senior Living?

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 Mcintosh Senior Living Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, McIntosh Senior Living 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Mcintosh Senior Living Stick Around?

Staff at McIntosh Senior Living tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 21%, the facility is 25 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 20%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Mcintosh Senior Living Ever Fined?

McIntosh Senior Living 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 Mcintosh Senior Living on Any Federal Watch List?

McIntosh Senior Living 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.