WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Wisconsin Dells Health Services has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #184 out of 321 facilities in Wisconsin, placing it in the bottom half overall, but it is #2 out of 4 in Columbia County, meaning there is only one local option rated better. The facility's performance has been stable, with 24 concerns identified in both 2024 and 2025, but none were life-threatening. Staffing is a relative strength here, with a turnover rate of 37%, lower than the state average, though the staffing rating is only 2 out of 5 stars. There have been no fines, which is a positive sign. However, there are significant concerns, such as issues with pest control that allowed mouse droppings in the kitchen area and failures in maintaining proper food safety and sanitation practices, including unclean food storage and lapses in hand hygiene during care. While the facility has strengths in staffing stability and no recorded fines, these health and safety deficiencies raise important questions for families considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Wisconsin
- #184/321
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 37% 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 56 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Wisconsin. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (37%)
11 points below Wisconsin average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Wisconsin average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Wisconsin avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
1 deficiency
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 F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to have an effective pest control program in place to prevent pests and rodents from entering the building through damaged exte...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
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
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 that the residents environment remained free of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure residents who are fed and receive medication by G-tube (Gastrostomy tube, a thin flexible tube inserted through a small ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 that a resident who needs respiratory care is pro...
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 F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 2
R33 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: end stage renal disease and dependence on renal d...
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 the effective monitoring of psychotropic medications for 1 of ...
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 and interview the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards 1 of 1 medication carts observed.
The medi...
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
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. This has the potential to affect all ...
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 establish and maintain an infection prevention and contro...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
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 record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were following the plan of care, failed to complete a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
3 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
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
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 make prompt efforts to resolve resident grievances for 1 resident (R1...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
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 the provision of pharmaceutical services (including procedures...
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 F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents are free of significant medication errors for 1 of 3 total sampled residents (R3).
The facility scheduled R3's Metoprolol S...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
4 deficiencies
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 record review, the facility did not ensure a resident with a catheter receives appropriate ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0742
(Tag F0742)
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 a resident who displays or is diagnosed with a mental dis...
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, document review, and review of the United States (US) Food Code, Dietary Aide (DA) J failed to test a low temperature dish machine's final rinse chemical level properl...
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 and control program des...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 that every resident was treated with dignity and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review, the facility did not ensure 2 (R37 and R14) of 18 residents reviewed who wer...
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, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 (R37) of 1 Resident reviewed with limited rang...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide an ongoing program of activities designed to me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0680
(Tag F0680)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a qualified activity professional was hired to direct the act...
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 ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner. This practice has the potential to affect all 54 residents residing a...
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 major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wisconsin facilities.
- • 37% turnover. Below Wisconsin's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Wisconsin Dells Health Services's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES 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 Wisconsin Dells Health Services Staffed?
CMS rates WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the Wisconsin average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Wisconsin Dells Health Services?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES during 2023 to 2025. These included: 24 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Wisconsin Dells Health Services?
WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 46 residents (about 51% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WISCONSIN DELLS, Wisconsin.
How Does Wisconsin Dells Health Services Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Wisconsin Dells Health Services?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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 below-average staffing rating.
Is Wisconsin Dells Health Services Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES 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 Wisconsin Dells Health Services Stick Around?
WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES has a staff turnover rate of 37%, 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 Wisconsin Dells Health Services Ever Fined?
WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES 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 Wisconsin Dells Health Services on Any Federal Watch List?
WISCONSIN DELLS HEALTH SERVICES 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.