Bethesda
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Bethesda nursing home has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among facilities, with a solid overall performance. It ranks #97 out of 337 in Minnesota, placing it in the top half of state facilities, and is the top option in Kandiyohi County. The facility is newly inspected, so there is no trend data, but it has a concerning issue with RN coverage that is less than 90% of other facilities in Minnesota. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 39%, which is better than the state average. On the downside, there have been serious incidents, including a failure to properly monitor a resident for dehydration and significant weight loss, which led to hospitalization and ultimately contributed to the resident's death. Additionally, the facility did not accurately report staffing data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and there were concerns about maintaining a safe and sanitary kitchen environment with grease buildup observed. Overall, while Bethesda has some strengths, families should be aware of these significant weaknesses when considering care for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Minnesota
- #97/337
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Too New
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near Minnesota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 47 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Minnesota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 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 (39%)
9 points below Minnesota average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Minnesota avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
3 deficiencies
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 identify, monitor, and comprehensively assess for dehydration and...
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 follow the physician order to notify the medical provider of weigh...
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
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 within the required...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident wheelchairs were kept in a clean and sanitary manner to promote resident well-being for 1 of 2 residents, (R...
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, person-centered care plan was developed a...
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** R480's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R480 had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance wi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and document review, the facility failed to coordinate with dialysis, the nephrologist, and th...
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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to monitor orthostatic blood pressures with the use of...
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 (R88) reviewed for immunizations was prov...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
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 administer insulin according to the physician's orders for 1 of 3...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 routine personal hygiene care (i.e., nail ca...
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 oberservation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure medication carts were properly secured for 2 of 4 medication carts located outside of the locked unit.
Findings in...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate and/or complete data for staffing information based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data during 1 of 1 quar...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment. This had the potential to affect all 186 residents.
During observations in the faci...
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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
- • 39% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Bethesda's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Bethesda an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Bethesda Staffed?
CMS rates Bethesda's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much 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 Bethesda?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at Bethesda during 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 13 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Bethesda?
Bethesda 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 248 certified beds and approximately 216 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a large facility located in WILLMAR, Minnesota.
How Does Bethesda Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, Bethesda's overall rating (4 stars) is above 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 Bethesda?
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 Bethesda Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Bethesda 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 4-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 Bethesda Stick Around?
Bethesda 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 Bethesda Ever Fined?
Bethesda 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 Bethesda on Any Federal Watch List?
Bethesda 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.