ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
St. Clare Living Community of Mora has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some significant concerns. They rank #197 out of 337 nursing homes in Minnesota, placing them in the bottom half, but they are the only option in Kanabec County. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with problems increasing from 2 issues in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 39%, which is below the state average. However, they have incurred $51,600 in fines, which is concerning and higher than 89% of Minnesota facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a failure to prevent falls, resulting in a resident suffering severe fractures that required surgery, and inadequate monitoring of residents on antipsychotic medications. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure proper use of personal protective equipment to prevent COVID-19 spread, which could affect all residents. Overall, while the staffing situation seems stable, the facility has significant room for improvement in resident safety and compliance.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Minnesota
- #197/337
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near Minnesota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $51,600 in fines. Lower than most Minnesota facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 44 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Minnesota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (39%)
9 points below Minnesota average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Minnesota average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Minnesota avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
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 residents were comprehensively assessed for s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
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 smoking opportunities to promote quality of life and resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 interview and document review the facility failed to complete neurological assessments following falls for 2 of 2 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
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 proper treatment was provided to maintain hearing for 1 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** R25
R25's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R25 had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance ...
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 comprehensively assess to assure safety with smoking...
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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the development of parameters for administration of heart ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
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 5 residents (R30) reviewed for immunizations were off...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 monitor orthostatic blood pressures with the use of...
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
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the spread of COVID. This had the potential to affect all 4 residents, v...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
2 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
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 interview and document review, the facility failed to manage bowel and constipation needs for 1 of 3 residents (R2) who...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 assess and implement new intervention(s) to prevent future falls for...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure confidential information was not readily available for all residents, staff, and visitors to view for 20 of 20 resid...
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 written notice of a bed hold after transportation to the ...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to reassess need for rehabilitation services for 1 of 1 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide audiology services to 1 of 1 (R29) resident reviewed for hearing.
Findings include:
R29's face sheet printed 12/28/2...
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
R31
R31's face sheet with admission date 02/15/2022 identified diagnoses included Alzheimer's, dementia, other behavioral disturbances.
Review of the physician order report dated 12/28/23, identified ...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an as needed (PRN) psychotropic (mood altering) medication o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
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 provide diet as ordered for 1 of 1 residents (R34) revi...
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 2 of 3 medication carts and 1 of 2 treatment c...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the required nursing information was posted and updated daily. This had to potential to affect all 45 residents livin...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
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 fall interventions for 1 of 3 residents (R1) r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to appropriately assess and implement appropriate inter...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
4 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of potential abuse was reported to the State...
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 ensure nursing assistant (NA) staff correctly secur...
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 infection control practices were being followed for handwashing after providing care and cleansing equipment after us...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
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 develop policies and procedures to ensure each resident or reside...
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
- • 39% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $51,600 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Minnesota. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is St Clare Living Community Of Mora's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA 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 St Clare Living Community Of Mora Staffed?
CMS rates ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at St Clare Living Community Of Mora?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 25 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 St Clare Living Community Of Mora?
ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA 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 65 certified beds and approximately 48 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MORA, Minnesota.
How Does St Clare Living Community Of Mora Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting St Clare Living Community Of Mora?
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 St Clare Living Community Of Mora Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA 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 St Clare Living Community Of Mora Stick Around?
ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 St Clare Living Community Of Mora Ever Fined?
ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA has been fined $51,600 across 14 penalty actions. This is above the Minnesota average of $33,595. 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 St Clare Living Community Of Mora on Any Federal Watch List?
ST CLARE LIVING COMMUNITY OF MORA 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.