Deficiency Index

Care & Rehab - Ladysmith 2

Ladysmith, Wisconsin · CCN 525710

9 surveys since 2013, 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
38
Surveys
9
Harm or worse
2
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2013–2026
’13’15’20’25’26
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worse2

Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file6/9

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

The facility

Certified beds
30
Ownership
For profit - Corporation
Chain
CARE & REHAB
County
Rusk · rural
Medicare-certified since
2013

CMS ratings

Overall
5
Health inspection
5
Staffing
5
Quality measures
5

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=6, floor 20).

Last survey on record

May 5, 2026

188 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 day4.463.73
Registered-nurse hours per resident day0.99—
Annual nurse turnover15.4%45.7%

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 minimalD375.0%E125.0%F—
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 4 of the 38 citations on record.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Care & Rehab - Ladysmith 2, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF880Jan 12, 2022

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility did not establish and maintain an Infection Control Program designed to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection, such as Covid-19, which has the potential to affect all 29 residents in the facility. Throughout the survey, observations were made in which staff did not wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as eye protection of goggles or face shields while in resident care areas, when the community transmission rate was high for Covid-19. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF880Feb 8, 2024

    Based on observations and interviews, the facility did not establish and implement an ongoing infection prevention and control program to prevent and control the onset and spread of infection as evidenced by the following observations. The facility did not ensure 12 of 16 residents (R) (R3, R6, R9, R12, R15, R16, R17, R18, R20, R23, R24, R25) were given the opportunity to conduct hand hygiene prior to meal services. The facility staff did not perform sanitization of durable medical equipment to prevent the spread of infection when warranted between resident transfers affecting 2 of 2 resident (R7 and R12). […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF641May 5, 2026

    Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 1 of 1 resident (R) reviewed. (R1) R1's comprehensive MDS assessment indicated a PASARR level 2 screen had not been completed. R1's medical record included a PASARR screen was completed on 2/17/25. This is evidenced by: On 05/05/26, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, dementia with anxiety, adjustment disorder, anxiety disorder, and other psychotic disorders.Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 12/30/25 documented section A1500 as No for currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual… […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF689Mar 6, 2025

    Based on observation, record review and interview the facility did not provided the needed services and assistive devices. The facility practice had the potential to affect 1 of 5 residents (R) (R17) observed for transfer and ambulation This is evidenced by: Surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Gait belts dated 7/24. The policy in part read: Policy: A gait belt provides a firm, grasping surface for the caregiver, protects the resident from accidental trauma to the skin, provides a sense of security to the resident, and protects the caregiver and resident from injury while transferring or ambulating. Suveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Fall Risk Management Policy dated 11/24. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF812Mar 6, 2025

    Based on random observation, record review and interview, the facility did not distribute foods in a sanitary manner. The facility practice affected one of one resident's (R) tray line service observed, (R17). This is evidenced by: Surveyor requested and reviewed the facility policy titled Food Handling Techniques For All Staff. which is not dated. The policy in part read: 1. What foods may not be touched with your bare hands? Answer: READY-TO-EAT FOODS Examples include: .Bread, toast, rolls, baked goods 2. What methods may be used to handle READY TO EAT FOODS? Answer: Utensils, tongs, napkins or disposable gloves. 3. Why is bare hand contact prohibited with READY-TO-EAT FOODS? Answer: Employees may transmit disease through unwashed or poorly washed hands. […]

Read 22 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 22 of 38 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • May 5, 2026Standard1 finding
  • Mar 6, 2025Standard2 findings
  • Feb 8, 2024Standard1 finding
  • Jan 12, 2022Standard2 findings
  • Feb 11, 2020Standard1 finding
  • Jan 17, 2019Standard4 findings
  • Dec 3, 2015Standard3 findings
  • Nov 4, 2014Standard8 findings
Show the 1 earlier survey
  • Dec 12, 2013—16 findings · 2 harm

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