Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the binding arbitration agreement was fully explained in a manner they or their representatives understood, including their right to not sign the agreement, for 3 of 4 residents (R31, R6, R40) reviewed for arbitration. Findings include: Review of the undated facility resident listing report identified R31, R6, and R40's Arbitration Agreement Response was yes. R31's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accepted on 7/31/26, identified she admitted to the facility on [DATE], and her cognition was moderately impaired. Review of R31's medical record identified that her resident representative/family member (FM)-A signed a Resolution of Legal Disputes/Arbitration Agreement on 7/15/26. …
F847 citations in Minnesota
Administration Deficiencies
Inform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
Against expectation — 2025
Minnesota cites F847 less often than its own record predicts
0.26 times the national share — cited less often here than elsewhere.
Of every deficiency written in Minnesota in 2025, this is the portion that was F847.
Each state is measured against its own expected share, not against other states.
In the surveyor’s words
What Minnesota surveyors wrote
F847 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.
The short window
Recent years
| Year | Share of Minnesota citations | vs expected |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 0.06% | 0.42× |
| 2024 | 0.16% | 0.95× |
| 2025 | 0.04% | 0.26× |
Shares of citations, not counts: earlier years hold fewer inspections.
What else Minnesota surveyors cite →
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