Deficiency Index

Aspirus Care & Rehab-Medford

Medford, Wisconsin · CCN 525641

14 surveys since 2010, 2 of them producing a finding at harm level or worse.

Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.

Citations on record
37
Surveys
14
Harm or worse
2
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2010–2026
’10’15’20’25’26
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worse2

Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file11/14

Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.

The facility

Certified beds
50
Ownership
Non profit - Corporation
Chain
Independent
County
Taylor · rural
Medicare-certified since
1998

CMS ratings

Overall
5
Health inspection
5
Staffing
5
Quality measures
3

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=7, floor 20).

Last survey on record

Apr 7, 2026

216 days ago.

Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.

Staffing

MeasureThis facilityPeer median
Nurse hours per resident day5.944.48
Registered-nurse hours per resident day2.47—
Annual nurse turnover41.2%49.3%

As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.

Enforcement

No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.

Severity of recent findings

Citations by CMS scope and severity. Rows are harm level, columns are how widespread the finding was.
SeverityIsolatedPatternWidespread
Immediate jeopardyJ—K—L—
Actual harmG—H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD583.3%E—F116.7%
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 6 of the 37 citations on record.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Aspirus Care & Rehab-Medford, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF812May 1, 2024

    Based on observation, staff interview and record review, the facility did not prepare distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect 21 of 22 residents within the facility. Findings: Glove use The Wisconsin Food Code states in part, Applicability and Terms Defined 1?201.10 Statement of Application and Listing of Terms . Food-contact surface means: . (b) Onto a surface normally in contact with food. 4-904.11 Kitchenware and Tableware. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF686Apr 7, 2026

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 2 of 2 residents (R) reviewed for pressure injuries (PI) (R7 and R30) received care consistently with professional standards of practice to prevent further deterioration and promote healing of an existing PI.R7 and R30 were at risk for PI development. The facility failed to provide complete comprehensive weekly assessments with staging of the PI. This is evidenced by Example 1 The standard of practice for staging pressure injuries is based on the NPIAP (National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel) system, which categorizes injuries from Stage 1 to Stage 4, along with Unstageable and Deep Tissue Pressure Injury (DTPI). […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF656Jun 4, 2025

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure implementation of person-centered care plan approaches for 1of 13 Residents (R1). This is evidenced by: The facility policy, titled Care Plan (Comprehensive, Temporary and Baseline) last reviewed 11/2020, states in part, The person-centered comprehensive care plan include: a) the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, and including the resident's strengths, goals, life history and preferences. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include multiple sclerosis, seizure disorder, paraplegia. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF684Jun 4, 2025

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that a resident (R) received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 out of 13 residents sampled. (R172) The facility did not follow provider's orders, or the facility wound assessment procedures for R172, who was needing care and treatment for a post operative surgical wound. Findings include: The facility's policy titled, Pressure Ulcers and Other Wound Procedure last revised on 03/2023 states in part, . 2. Assessment 1. Frequency .b. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF610May 1, 2024

    Based on record review and interview, the facility did not conduct a thorough investigation into allegation of abuse for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for neglect and abuse (R8). Example 1 This is evidenced by: Surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Caregiver Misconduct Policy and Procedure with most recent date revision of 11/23. The policy in part reads: Conduct and document a thorough investigation: 1. All alleged violations involving resident mistreatment of injuries of unknown source must be thoroughly investigated and documented. […]

Read 22 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 22 of 37 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Apr 7, 2026Standard1 finding
  • Jun 4, 2025Standard2 findings
  • May 1, 2024Standard and complaint3 findings
  • Apr 26, 2023Standard1 finding
  • Nov 25, 2019Complaint2 findings
  • Jun 5, 2019Standard1 finding
  • May 16, 2018Standard1 finding
  • Mar 22, 2017Standard1 finding
Show the 6 earlier surveys
  • Feb 18, 2016Standard1 finding
  • Oct 3, 2013—6 findings
  • Aug 7, 2013—1 finding
  • Aug 24, 2012—3 findings
  • Jun 16, 2011—12 findings · 2 harm
  • Dec 22, 2010—2 findings

Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.

Comparable facilities

The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.

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