UNITED PIONEER HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
United Pioneer Home has received a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack compared to other facilities. It ranks #181 out of 321 in Wisconsin, placing it in the bottom half, but it is #2 out of 6 in Polk County, indicating only one local option is better. The facility is on an improving trend, having reduced its issues from 10 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a perfect rating of 5/5 stars and a turnover rate of 44%, which is slightly below the Wisconsin average of 47%. However, there are notable concerns, such as a serious incident where a resident suffered fractures due to inadequate supervision to prevent falls, and failures in maintaining proper infection control practices, which could affect all residents. On the positive side, there have been no fines recorded, suggesting compliance with regulations.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Wisconsin
- #181/321
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Wisconsin's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wisconsin facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 74 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Wisconsin nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 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 (44%)
4 points below Wisconsin average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Wisconsin average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Wisconsin avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the resident's environment remains as free of acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
8 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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
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 conduct a thorough investigation into the abuse or protect from futur...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was documented accurately related to tube feeding for 2 (R2 and R11) of 13 residents review...
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, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure activities of daily living were maintained for 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 a restorative program in attempt to improve or...
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 record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 5 residents (R8) were free from unnecessary medications. ...
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with current accepted professional principles for 1 ...
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 record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention program designed to pro...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not establish an Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) that mus...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 revise the care plan with accurate information for safet...
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents were safe in their environment to preve...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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 record review and interview, the facility did not consult with the resident's physician when the resident had a change ...
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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure residents received care per professional standa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 initiate interventions to prevent weight loss for 1 of 1...
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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure residents using psychotropic drugs received a g...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews, the facility did not distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect 3 residents who...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 2
The facility policy, entitled Hand Hygiene, revised 3/2023, states, .8. Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at le...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interviews and kitchen temperature log review, the facility did not ensure the dishwashers were maintained and in safe operating condition. This has the potential to affect all ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 1:
On 08/01/22 at 10:36 a.m., Surveyor observed two grab bars on the upper half of R1's bed. R1 was confused and could n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0811
(Tag F0811)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interview, the facility did not prevent untrained staff from feeding residents.
Surveyor observed Dietary Aide (DA) F feeding two residents (R) in the dining room. (R28, R29...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 1:
On 08/01/22 at 10:36 a.m., Surveyor observed two grab bars on the upper half of R1's bed. R1 was confused and could n...
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 observations, interview and record review, the facility did not store or handle foods in a safe and sanitary manner. The practices have a potential to affect all 32 residents.
Flour was not s...
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 Wisconsin facilities.
- • 44% turnover. Below Wisconsin's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is United Pioneer Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns UNITED PIONEER HOME an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Wisconsin, 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 United Pioneer Home Staffed?
CMS rates UNITED PIONEER HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Wisconsin average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at United Pioneer Home?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at UNITED PIONEER HOME during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates United Pioneer Home?
UNITED PIONEER HOME 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 34 residents (about 68% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LUCK, Wisconsin.
How Does United Pioneer Home Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, UNITED PIONEER HOME's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting United Pioneer Home?
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 United Pioneer Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, UNITED PIONEER HOME 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 #1 of 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at United Pioneer Home Stick Around?
UNITED PIONEER HOME has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Wisconsin 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 United Pioneer Home Ever Fined?
UNITED PIONEER HOME 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 United Pioneer Home on Any Federal Watch List?
UNITED PIONEER HOME 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.