WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge II has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the care provided. It ranks #276 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, placing it in the bottom half statewide and #8 out of 9 in Dakota County, meaning there are only a couple of better local options. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 11 in 2024 to 13 in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, achieving 5/5 stars for staffing levels, although the turnover rate is average at 45%. However, concerning incidents include a critical failure to perform CPR on a resident who was unresponsive, as well as lapses in proper personal protective equipment usage and a lack of an effective antibiotic stewardship program, which raises serious safety and infection control concerns.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Minnesota
- #276/337
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 45% turnover. Near Minnesota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $24,070 in fines. Higher than 92% of Minnesota facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 123 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
- 30 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 (45%)
3 points below Minnesota average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Minnesota average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Minnesota avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
13 deficiencies
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 ensure resident choices for bathing preferences were assessed and...
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 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN; CMS-10055) and/or Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNOC; CMS-1012...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 copy of the resident's base line care plan for 1 of 2 re...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed, and maintained to...
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 record review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were conducted upon admission for 1 of 2 re...
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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure effective collaboration between the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 observation, interview and document review the facility failed to comprehensively reassess and demonstrate adequate jus...
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident that was prescribed psychotropic medications w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure private and confidential resident information was secure and not visible to residents and visitors when multiple care ...
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 5 of the 6 residents (R5, R9, R26, R28, and R133) reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure proper personal protective equipment (PPE) us...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program which included development of protocols and a system to monitor appropriateness of antibiotic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the acting infection preventionist had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. This had the potential ...
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
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 (R1) resident had parameters of an as needed (PRN) antipsychotic medication (medication used for a variety of mental health...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
4 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
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
Someone could have died · 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 basic life support, including cardiopulmonary resuscitati...
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 notify the physician timely for 1 of 1 resident (R1) who was reco...
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
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 record review, the facility failed to immediately report to the state agency (SA) when a provider orders ...
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 interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for 1 of 3 residents who...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
5 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 assess, monitor, and document for 2 of 2 residents (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a fast-acting insulin Flexpen, and newly attached needle was primed and administered in accordance with manufacturer...
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 implement the current standards of vaccinations regarding pneumon...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 medication carts were free of expired facility stock medications. The findings had the potential to affect all 33 residents resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the acting infection preventionist (IP) had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. This had the poten...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
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 allegations of misappropriation of property were reported ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
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 provide an opportunity for participation in care plan development f...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS; i.e....
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** R7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated R7 had moderate cognitive impairment and needed extensive assista...
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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were attempted and recorded prior to the administration of as-needed (PRN) anti-ps...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
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 assessed oral and dental abnormalities were acted upon and...
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 2 of 5 residents (R2, R7) were offered or received the pne...
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
- • 45% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 30 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $24,070 in fines. Higher than 94% of Minnesota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (36/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II 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 Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii Staffed?
CMS rates WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii?
State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 29 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 Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii?
WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II 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 37 certified beds and approximately 24 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEST SAINT PAUL, Minnesota.
How Does Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii?
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 Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II 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 Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii Stick Around?
WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II has a staff turnover rate of 45%, 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 Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii Ever Fined?
WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II has been fined $24,070 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Minnesota average of $33,320. 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 Walker Methodist Westwood Ridge Ii on Any Federal Watch List?
WALKER METHODIST WESTWOOD RIDGE II 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.