GRAND VIEW CARE CTR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Grand View Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor quality and significant concerns regarding care. They rank #281 out of 321 facilities in Wisconsin, placing them in the bottom half of state rankings, and #5 out of 5 in Trempealeau County, meaning there are no better local options. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 11 in 2025. While staffing has a good rating of 4 out of 5 stars, the turnover rate is concerning at 64%, significantly higher than the state average. Of note, the center has racked up $90,900 in fines, which is higher than 88% of Wisconsin facilities, suggesting repeated compliance problems. Additionally, there have been serious incidents where residents were not adequately protected from pressure injuries and falls, with one resident suffering a severe injury requiring staples due to a fall that could have been prevented. Overall, while staffing is a relative strength, the facility has multiple critical and serious shortcomings that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Wisconsin
- #281/321
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $90,900 in fines. Higher than 77% of Wisconsin facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Wisconsin. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Wisconsin average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
18pts above Wisconsin avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
16 points above Wisconsin average of 48%
The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
5 deficiencies
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 record review, the facility did not ensure resident environment remains as free of accident ...
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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents (R) with indwelling Foley catheters received care an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
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 adequately assess and provide necessary care and services to attain...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconci...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
6 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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents received the necessary treatment and se...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained as free of acc...
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 did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploita...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0944
(Tag F0944)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure staff received Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program training. This practice had the potential to affect all 43 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0895
(Tag F0895)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not develop a compliance and ethics program that has been reasonably desi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0946
(Tag F0946)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not set forth an effective way to communicate the program's standards, po...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
7 deficiencies
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 12 (R3) residents reviewed for comprehensive...
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
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, record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 4 sampled residents, (R) R19, who are ...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 2 sampled residents (R) R39 received treatment and care in accordance with standards of practice when R39 was not gi...
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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility did not ensure 1 of 1 residents (R) reviewed with a suprapubi...
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 and interview, staff did not perform sanitizing of durable medical equipment to prevent the spread of infection when warranted between 3 of 3 residents (R) (R11, R20, R21).
This i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain a safe and sanitary environment in which food is prepared, stored, and distributed. Sanitization testing was not record...
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 record review, the facility staff postings did not accurately reflect the census, or the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff on a daily basis. This...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
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
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 develop and/or implement policies and procedures for ensuring the r...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
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 did not thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 1 injury ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and grievance record review, the facility did not ensure grievances were investigated and resolved in accordance with facility policy for 1 Resident (R) R3 of 1 resident.
The facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
6 deficiencies
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident from verbal and physical abuse by a Certified Nu...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploita...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 3 sampled residents (R1, R2, and R3) received trea...
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 F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not use the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week.
Review of staff posting hours revealed th...
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 F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not complete a performance evaluation for every nurse aide, at least once every 12 months for 2 of 5 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not implement its policy and procedure to protect its residents following...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
4 deficiencies
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 record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that a resident (R) with arterial wounds received the necessar...
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** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not implement care planned approaches for 1 of 1 residents (...
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 administered medication intended to promote sleep without a system in place t...
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, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable d...
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?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $90,900 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $90,900 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Wisconsin. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Grand View Care Ctr's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GRAND VIEW CARE CTR an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Wisconsin, 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 Grand View Care Ctr Staffed?
CMS rates GRAND VIEW CARE CTR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 percentage points above the Wisconsin average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Grand View Care Ctr?
State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at GRAND VIEW CARE CTR during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 24 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Grand View Care Ctr?
GRAND VIEW CARE CTR 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 50 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BLAIR, Wisconsin.
How Does Grand View Care Ctr Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, GRAND VIEW CARE CTR's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Grand View Care Ctr?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Grand View Care Ctr Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GRAND VIEW CARE CTR 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Grand View Care Ctr Stick Around?
Staff turnover at GRAND VIEW CARE CTR is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Wisconsin average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Grand View Care Ctr Ever Fined?
GRAND VIEW CARE CTR has been fined $90,900 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Wisconsin average of $33,988. 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 Grand View Care Ctr on Any Federal Watch List?
GRAND VIEW CARE CTR 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.
GRAND VIEW CARE CTR
620 GRANDVIEW AVE, BLAIR, WI 54616 | (608) 989-2511
Strengths
- 4-star staffing
Concerns
- 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
- 1-star rating
- 31 deficiencies
Ask about: Inspection Response, Staff Retention, Rn Coverage
nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025