F660 in Minnesota. Pick another state for the same tag.
Against expectation — 2025
Minnesota cites F660 more often than its own record predicts
Versus expected share2.97×
2.97 times the share F660 takes of citations nationally.
Share of Minnesota citations0.23%
Of every deficiency written in Minnesota in 2025, this is the portion that was F660.
Minnesota0.23%
National0.08%
Share of all citations that were F660.
Each state is measured against its own expected share, not against other states.
In the surveyor’s words
What Minnesota surveyors wrote
F660 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.
J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedJuly 29, 2024
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to evaluate a resident's discharge needs to ensure self or appropriate discharge location could accommodate his medical needs including blood sugar checks, insulin administration, and wound care, for 1 of 1 resident (R6) who was discharged to a homeless shelter that was unable to meet R6's complex medical needs. This resulted in the potential for serious harm, injury, impairment, or death to R6.
The immediate jeopardy began on 7/23/24, when R6 was discharged from the facility when facility transportation dropped R6 off at Union Gospel Mission, a homeless shelter that was not equipted to meet R6's medical needs. …
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide ongoing comprehensive discharge planning to ensure all discharge needs of the resident were identified in order to avoid the development or worsening pressure ulcers, and to avoid readmission for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for discharge planning. This resulted in actual harm to R1, who had developed a pressure ulcer that worsened, and had an unsuccessful discharge that resulted in readmission to the facility.
Findings include:
R1's Face Sheet printed 10/26/20, indicated R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. …
D · No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedApril 17, 2025
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide ongoing, comprehensive discharge planning to a lower level of care for 1 of 1 residents (R52) who wished to be discharged from the nursing home.
Findings include:
R52's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated active discharge planning was occurring for the resident to return to another facility but, a referral had not been made to a Local Contact Agency (LCA) and discharge was expected to be more than three months away. The MDS indicated R52 had intact cognition.
R52's care plan revised on 1/8/24, indicated R52 had a discharge plan to move into an assisted living facility. …
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