F636 in Minnesota. Pick another state for the same tag.
Against expectation — 2025
Minnesota cites F636 more often than its own record predicts
Versus expected share1.09×
1.09 times the share F636 takes of citations nationally.
Share of Minnesota citations0.27%
Of every deficiency written in Minnesota in 2025, this is the portion that was F636.
Minnesota0.27%
National0.25%
Share of all citations that were F636.
Each state is measured against its own expected share, not against other states.
In the surveyor’s words
What Minnesota surveyors wrote
F636 findings written in Minnesota, one from each severity band recorded here, most serious first.
Severity is as the surveyor wrote it. Some findings had already been corrected before the survey.
D · No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedMay 7, 2026
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of a required annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (R7), which had the potential to result in inaccurate assessment data and/or improper care planning.Findings include:R7's most recent MDS assessment, a quarterly assessment dated [DATE], was reviewed. Based on the assessment schedule, an annual MDS assessment was required to be completed following the 12/2/25 quarterly assessment.R7's electronic medical record (EMR) and MDS assessments lacked evidence the required annual MDS assessment was completed within the federally required timeframe. …
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction