← Back to search results

WARROAD CARE CENTER

WARROAD, MN · Roseau County · Non profit - Corporation · 49 certified beds

📍 1401 Lake Street Northwest, Warroad, MN 56763  ·  📞 (218) 386-1235

Medicare ID: 245329  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Dec 18, 2025

Consumer Alert: Abuse Citation
This facility has been cited for potential issues related to abuse. CMS places this warning on facilities where inspectors identified concerns during their survey.
Overall Safety Score
47
out of 100
Serious Concerns
Component Scores
5
Inspection
100
Staffing
Enforcement
90
Complaints
33
Quality
📋 Last inspected: December 18, 2025 📦 CMS data as of: June 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
5
Staffing
100
Enforcement
0
Complaints
90
Quality Outcomes
33

What the numbers mean

WARROAD CARE CENTER scored 47 out of 100 — 23 points below the state average of 70.

📋 Inspections: 74 citations over the last 36 months — 39 more than the state average (35). 5 were rated serious (G+) — inspectors found actual or potential harm to residents. 16 findings recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

👥 Staffing: Staffing levels are strong — RN hours and total nurse hours per resident are in the favorable range. Adequate staffing is one of the most important factors in resident safety.

⚠️ Penalties & enforcement: CMS has recorded 11 enforcement actions totaling $280,774 against this facility. Penalties are only issued after a facility fails two levels of regulatory review — meaning this is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation. Ask for a written explanation of every fine and what corrective actions were taken.

💬 Complaints: Low complaint activity — few formal complaints from residents or families have triggered inspections. Ask if there is a family council you can speak with.

🚨 Resident quality outcomes: Multiple quality measures are well below national benchmarks — residents may experience higher rates of falls, pain, or hospitalizations than at comparable facilities. Ask management about their improvement plans.

🔍 Most cited areas: The facility had a problem with fire alarms, smoke detectors, alarm testing, or alarm outage procedures. These systems warn staff and residents when fire or smoke is detected., The facility had a problem with corridor doors, smoke doors, or hallway barriers that are supposed to slow smoke and fire spread so residents have time to evacuate or shelter safely.. The full report provides the complete citation record with dates, severity levels, and plain-English descriptions.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

74
Total citations
State avg: 34.8
5
Serious (G+)
State avg: 1.3
16
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

53
4
Fire Alarm & Smoke Detection
The facility had a problem with fire alarms, smoke detectors, alarm testing, or alarm outage procedures. These systems warn staff and residents when fire or smoke is detected.
4
Fire Doors & Corridors
The facility had a problem with corridor doors, smoke doors, or hallway barriers that are supposed to slow smoke and fire spread so residents have time to evacuate or shelter safely.

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

$280,774
Total federal fines
11
Enforcement actions
36
Days of payment denial

⚠ Each enforcement action required CMS to make a separate non-compliance determination — meaning this facility failed two levels of regulatory review before any fine was issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective steps were taken.

📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
📊
Enforcement score: 0/100 — 75 points below the state average of 75/100 — worse than most comparable facilities. A score below 70 indicates a meaningful enforcement history that warrants direct conversation with facility management.
Serious Citations That May Have Triggered Enforcement
Nurse aide competency — No harm, could worsen · Dec 18, 2025
Infection prevention & control — No harm, could worsen · Dec 18, 2025
Accident & hazard prevention — Immediate danger · Nov 6, 2024
Federal Enforcement Actions on Record
Date Type Amount / Length
Nov 6, 2024 Payment Denial 15 days payment denial
Nov 6, 2024 Fine $145,889
Jun 13, 2024 Payment Denial 5 days payment denial
Jun 13, 2024 Fine $16,187
Jan 2, 2024 Fine $3,529
Dec 11, 2023 Fine $8,469
Nov 22, 2023 Payment Denial 1 day payment denial
Nov 22, 2023 Fine $11,180
Nov 6, 2023 Fine $5,293
Sep 8, 2023 Payment Denial 15 days payment denial
Sep 8, 2023 Fine $90,227

Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog — federal civil monetary penalties & payment denials, 2023–present.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Antipsychotic medication use
3.4% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. High use can signal residents being over-medicated rather than receiving attentive care.
Flu vaccination rate
26.1% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu this season. Higher is better.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

No account or payment required. Enter your email and we will save this facility-watch request.

What to know about Warroad Care Center

Warroad Care Center is a Medicare-certified nursing home in Warroad, Mn with 49 certified beds. Its current Senior Care Report Card score is 47/100, placing it in the Serious Concerns range. The latest CMS survey date in our data is Dec 18, 2025. Over the last 36 months, our CMS citation data shows 74 citations, including 5 serious findings and 16 repeat findings. Families comparing this facility should pay close attention to inspection history, penalties and enforcement, quality outcomes before scheduling a tour or accepting placement. Ownership type on file: Non profit - Corporation.

⚠️
Overall Assessment — Serious Concerns  ·  47/100
This facility has notable issues in the federal inspection record that require careful evaluation.
What to do next: Do not choose without thoroughly reviewing all citations below and getting answers in writing from management.
Federal Penalty: $359,330 (11 separate actions)
CMS has imposed civil monetary penalties totaling $359,330 against this facility. Penalties are only levied after a separate non-compliance determination — meaning a facility must fail two levels of regulatory review before a fine is issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective actions were taken.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is well below average. Multiple or serious deficiencies found.
👥 Staffing
Staffing levels are adequate — RN hours and nurse-to-resident ratios meet or exceed benchmarks.
⚖ Penalties
Facility has received federal fines or enforcement sanctions. Requires direct explanation from management.
💬 Complaints
Complaint activity is low — few formal complaints filed by residents or families.
Multiple quality measures are below national benchmarks. Ask management directly about resident care practices.
⚠ Serious Findings on Record: 5 citation(s) where inspectors found actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents. See Section D for the full details and ask management how each was resolved.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 100
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 5
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 0
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 90
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 33
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to MN State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility MN avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
47 70 ▼ Worse than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
5 53 ▼ Worse than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
100 76 ▲ Better than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
0 75 ▼ Worse than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
90 89 ▲ Better than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
33 55 ▼ Worse than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
74 34.8 ▼ Worse than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
5 1.3 ▼ Worse than state avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2025-12-18
11 citations
2025-12-04
2 citations
2025-03-27
1 citations
2024-11-06
34 citations  (2 serious)
2024-07-17
2 citations
2024-06-13
1 citations  (1 serious)
2023-12-06
3 citations
2023-11-29
15 citations
2023-11-22
2 citations  (1 serious)
2023-09-08
1 citations  (1 serious)

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Confused by codes like F0732 or K0363? Use the free inspection report decoder to understand F-tags, fire-safety K-tags, severity letters, and repeat findings. Get the decoder →
Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2025-12-18 11 citation(s)
F0726 No harm, could worsen
Nurse aide competency
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0883 No harm, could worsen
Immunizations (flu & pneumonia)
K0354 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system out of service procedures
Fire safety: sprinkler system out of service procedures. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0346 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire alarm out of service procedures
Fire safety: fire alarm out of service procedures. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0355 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: portable fire extinguishers
Fire safety: portable fire extinguishers. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0887 No harm, could worsen
F0887
F0582 No harm, could worsen
F0582
K0372 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: smoke barriers must be maintained
Fire safety: smoke barriers must be maintained. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0345 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire alarm testing and maintenance
Fire safety: fire alarm testing and maintenance. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0761 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: inspection and testing documentation
Fire safety: inspection and testing documentation. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
Survey: 2025-12-04 2 citation(s)
F0657 No harm, could worsen
Care plan timing & review
F0600 No harm, could worsen
Freedom from abuse, neglect & exploitation
Survey: 2025-03-27 1 citation(s)
F0550 No harm, could worsen
Resident rights & dignity
Survey: 2024-11-06 34 citation(s) — 2 serious
F0689 Immediate danger
Accident & hazard prevention
F0600 Immediate danger
Freedom from abuse, neglect & exploitation
F0867 No harm, could worsen
Quality assurance program
F0945 No harm, could worsen
F0945
F0940 No harm, could worsen
F0940
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
K0345 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire alarm testing and maintenance
Fire safety: fire alarm testing and maintenance. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0943 No harm, could worsen
F0943
F0841 No harm, could worsen
Responsibilities of facility
F0944 No harm, could worsen
F0944
F0942 No harm, could worsen
F0942
F0725 No harm, could worsen
Adequate & competent nursing staff
F0941 No harm, could worsen
F0941
F0838 No harm, could worsen
Facility assessment update
F0947 No harm, could worsen
Nurse aide training program
F0946 No harm, could worsen
Staff training requirements
F0949 No harm, could worsen
F0949
F0865 No harm, could worsen
F0865
F0688 No harm, could worsen
Range of motion & mobility
K0293 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous area doors
Fire safety: hazardous area doors. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0690 No harm, could worsen
Bowel & bladder care
K0363 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: corridor doors must close and latch
Fire safety: corridor doors must close and latch. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0550 No harm, could worsen
Resident rights & dignity
F0656 No harm, could worsen
Comprehensive care plan
F0641 No harm, could worsen
Accuracy of resident assessment
F0610 No harm, could worsen
Investigate & correct violations
F0585 No harm, could worsen
Right to file a grievance
K0712 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire drills and staff preparedness
Fire safety: fire drills and staff preparedness. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0324 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: cooking equipment and kitchen protection
Fire safety: cooking equipment and kitchen protection. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0609 No harm, could worsen
Timely reporting of alleged violations
K0353 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0321 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous rooms and storage areas
Fire safety: hazardous rooms and storage areas. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0843 No harm
F0843
F0840 No harm
F0840
Survey: 2024-07-17 2 citation(s)
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0610 No harm, could worsen
Investigate & correct violations
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

⚠ Attention: 2 of 7 star-rated measures show rates above what\'s typically considered acceptable. This means the facility may be struggling in areas that directly affect residents\' day-to-day wellbeing — not just its inspection record.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Long Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Daily activity decline
29.9% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost the ability to dress, eat, or move around independently over the past year. Rising rates can signal that residents aren't receiving enough physical therapy or that staffing is too thin to support mobility.
★ Star rating
Urinary tract infections
0.5% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who had a urinary tract infection. While some UTIs are unavoidable, high rates can point to poor hydration practices, catheter hygiene, or rushed care routines.
★ Star rating
Antipsychotic medication use
3.4% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. These medications carry serious risks for older adults. High use often signals that a facility is medicating residents to manage behavior instead of addressing needs through attentive, person-centered care.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing on…
5.5% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
★ Star rating
Flu vaccination rate
26.1% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu. Nursing homes are high-risk environments for flu outbreaks. Anything below 90% warrants a question about the facility's vaccination policy.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure u…
6.7% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an…
23.3% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
Physical restraints used
4.8% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents physically restrained (lap belts, side rails). Federal regulations require restraints to be a last resort. High use is a red flag for understaffed facilities cutting corners on behavioral care.
Signs of depression
4.1% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents showing symptoms of depression. Social isolation, lack of meaningful activities, and poor staffing all contribute. This measure reflects the emotional quality of life inside the facility.
Unexplained weight loss
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost 5% or more of body weight unexpectedly. This can indicate inadequate nutrition, difficulty eating without assistance, or unaddressed medical issues.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
96.1% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Pneumonia vaccination rate
10.4% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia — one of the leading causes of death in older adults. Higher is better.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
100.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or wor…
22.7% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or worsened bowel or bladder incontinence
Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and a…
71.1% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. Federal inspectors found 5 citations rated as causing actual harm or immediate jeopardy in the public record. Walk us through each incident: what happened, who was affected, and what specific policy or staffing changes have been put in place since?
  2. This facility has a significant CMS enforcement history. Can you identify each action in the past three years, what it was for, and what systemic — not just procedural — changes were made to prevent recurrence?
  3. Resident quality measures for this facility are well below national benchmarks. What specific initiatives — with measurable targets — are in place to address fall rates, antipsychotic medication use, and pressure wound prevention?
  4. 5 citations in the public record were rated as causing actual harm to a resident. Can you describe what occurred in each case and what specific safeguards are now in place?
  5. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • Staffing levels appear adequate — ask about weekend and night coverage
  • Low complaint activity — ask if there is a family council you can speak with
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Inspection score is low — ask for the most recent state survey results
  • Penalty history present — ask what enforcement actions occurred and outcomes
  • Serious-harm citations on record — require a written explanation of corrective action
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Use the free facility-watch form above to get email alerts when this facility's record changes materially.

2026-06-16
47 — Concerning

🏢 Ownership & Operators

Ownership matters because large corporate chains sometimes prioritize cost controls over care quality. CMS requires every nursing home to disclose its owners, operators, and managing employees. Frequent ownership changes can disrupt staffing and operations — which is why we flag facilities that changed ownership in the past 12 months.

🔗 ERICKSON, DEBORAH operates 1 facility across .
Owner / Operator Role Ownership % Effective
ERICKSON, DEBORAH Individual 1970-01-01
MARVIN, MAUREEN Individual 1970-01-01
MUSGROVE, DONNIE Individual 1970-01-01
EVANS, ROBERT Individual 1970-01-01
DOYLE, RONDA Individual 1970-01-01
CASPERSON, TOM Individual 1970-01-01
BERTILRUD, MARK Individual 1970-01-01
SCHAIBLE, BRIAN Individual 1970-01-01
GRIFFIN, MIKI Individual 1970-01-01

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Senior Care Report Card safety score for Warroad Care Center?
Warroad Care Center has an independently computed Safety Score of 47 out of 100, based on CMS inspection findings, staffing levels, penalty history, complaint volume, and quality measures.
Where is Warroad Care Center located?
Warroad Care Center is located in Warroad, MN. View the full address, phone number, and a map at the top of this report.
How many beds does Warroad Care Center have?
Warroad Care Center is certified for 49 beds in the CMS Care Compare dataset.
When was the most recent CMS health inspection at Warroad Care Center?
The most recent CMS health inspection summarized in this report was completed on December 18, 2025. CMS publishes a new inspection cycle approximately every 12 months.
What does the Senior Care Report Card Safety Score measure?
The Safety Score (0-100) combines five public-data signals: CMS health inspection severity, nursing staffing hours per resident, civil monetary penalties, complaint counts, and quality measures. Methodology and weightings are documented at /how-it-works/.
Is the report on Warroad Care Center affiliated with the facility?
No. This report is independently computed from public CMS Care Compare data and is not affiliated with Warroad Care Center, CMS, or Medicare.gov. It is provided as a research aid for families.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: June 25, 2026.