Deficiency Index

Guttenberg Care Center

Guttenberg, Iowa · CCN 165334

11 surveys since 2011, 1 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
19
Surveys
11
Harm or worse
1
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2011–2022
’11’15’20’22
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worse1

Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file11/11

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

The facility

Certified beds
46
Ownership
For profit - Limited Liability company
Chain
LEGACY HEALTHCARE
County
Clayton · rural
Medicare-certified since
1997

CMS ratings

Overall
5
Health inspection
5
Staffing
3
Quality measures
3

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

—

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 day3.653.63
Registered-nurse hours per resident day0.74—
Annual nurse turnover40.0%44.5%

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.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Guttenberg Care Center, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF657Jul 14, 2022

    Based on record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to conduct quarterly care conferences and invite resident/family to attend and provide input for 1 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident #11) The facility census was 34 residents. Findings include: Review of the documentation for Resident #11 revealed an admitted to the facility of 4/12/21. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set MDS) assessment for Resident #11 dated 4/15/22, showed the resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF658Jul 14, 2022

    Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to follow manufacturers recommendations for use of insulin pens for 1 of 1 residents observed receiving insulin injections (Resident #4). The facility census was 34 residents. Findings include: Review of the Physicians Orders for Resident #4 revealed current orders on 7/13/22 for the resident to receive a scheduled dose of [MEDICATION(S)] (long acting) insulin of 45 units every morning as well as an adjusted dose of [MEDICATION(S)] (short acting) insulin based on the residents blood sugar level at that time. During observation of Medication Administration on 7/13/22 at 7:00 am, Staff A (LPN) reviewed the MEDICATION ORDERS FOR [MEDICAL RECORD OR PHYSICIAN ORDER] . […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF623Apr 1, 2021

    Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the ombudsman for 4 of 4 residents (#6, #20, #31 and # 76) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 30. Findings include: Record review showed Resident # 6 was hospitalized [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Resident # 6 was hospitalized [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Resident # 6 was hospitalized on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Record review showed Resident # 76 was hospitalized on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Record review showed Resident # 20 was hospitalized on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Record review showed resident # 31 was hospitalized on [DATE] and did not return to the facility. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF610Jan 12, 2021

    Based on record review and staff, resident and family interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to separate the alleged perpetrator from the victim for 1 of 6 sampled (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 29. Findings include: The Intake Information sheet revealed the facility reported an allegation to the Department of Inspections and Appeals on 12/6/20. The allegation involved Staff A and Resident #1 and occurred on 12/4/20 at 7:30 p.m. The report had a Corrective Action Description of separated the aide and resident immediately and notified the local law enforcement. Review of Staff A's timecard sheet revealed Staff A worked on 12/4/20 from 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF686Jan 12, 2021

    Based on observation, clinical record review, staff, resident and physician interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressures sores received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 3 of 3 sampled (Resident #4, #5 and #6). The facility reported a census of 29. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified the following pressure ulcer definitions: a. Stage II is partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough (dead tissue, usually cream or yellow in color). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister. b. […]

Read all 19 findings in full →

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Jul 14, 2022Standard2 findings
  • Apr 1, 2021Standard1 finding
  • Jan 12, 2021Complaint3 findings
  • May 9, 2019Standard1 finding
  • Sep 5, 2018Complaint1 finding
  • Feb 8, 2018Standard and complaint3 findings
  • Nov 6, 2014Standard2 findings
  • Jul 24, 2014Complaint1 finding · 1 harm
Show the 3 earlier surveys
  • Sep 26, 2013—1 finding
  • Aug 17, 2012—3 findings
  • Aug 19, 2011—1 finding

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