Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Cerenity Care Center White Bear Lake during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with a full code order and intact cognition was found unresponsive and not breathing by a NA, who promptly notified an LPN. The LPN confirmed the resident was unresponsive, without a palpable radial pulse, and noted cool skin on the forehead but did not fully assess the body, verify code status, announce a code blue, or initiate CPR or EMS activation. Instead, the LPN called another LPN to "look at something" and waited several minutes. When the second LPN arrived, she entered the room, verified the full code status, noted the resident was not breathing but still warm with no rigor mortis, and immediately initiated CPR while directing staff to call 911, announce a code blue correctly, and obtain the AED and crash cart. This sequence of inaction and delay by the first LPN, contrary to facility policy requiring immediate CPR and EMS activation for unresponsive full code residents, led to an Immediate Jeopardy deficiency.
A resident with impaired vision and a history of non-compliance was allowed to self-administer insulin but failed to prime the insulin pen, leading to incorrect dosages. Despite being educated on self-administration, the resident did not follow the necessary steps, and the facility lacked a specific policy on priming insulin pens.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and lumbar stenosis did not receive proper nail care as outlined in their care plan. Observations showed the resident's nails were approximately 1 inch long, and they expressed a desire to have them cut. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in nail care responsibilities, with nursing assistants and nurses having different roles depending on the resident's diabetic status. The facility's policy required weekly nail care, but documentation was lacking, indicating a failure to adhere to the policy.
The facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for a resident on psychotropic medications due to an IT glitch that prevented the receipt of recommendations from the consultant pharmacist. Additionally, the facility did not obtain informed consent for the use of Depakote, a psychotropic medication, for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, as required by policy.
Two residents with diabetes received insulin injections without proper needle priming, leading to a medication error rate of 9.09%. LPNs failed to follow manufacturer's instructions, and the facility lacked a specific insulin pen policy.
The facility failed to follow infection control standards for two residents. A resident requiring incontinence care was not provided proper hand hygiene by a nursing assistant, who used the same gloves throughout the care process. Another resident, needing contact precautions due to an ESBL-resistant infection, was assisted by a physical therapist assistant who did not wear the required gown and gloves. Both staff members acknowledged their oversights, and the facility's infection preventionist emphasized the importance of adhering to protocols.
Failure to Immediately Initiate CPR and Activate EMS for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to immediately initiate CPR and activate EMS for a resident with a documented full code status who was found unresponsive. The resident had diagnoses including enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile, a non-pressure ulcer of the left foot, and peripheral vascular disease, and required partial to moderate assistance with grooming and transfers. A physician order indicated the resident was full code, and the resident’s MDS showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitive intactness. According to the report, around midnight a nursing assistant observed that the resident’s chest was not rising, the resident did not respond to attempts at arousal, and appeared not to be breathing. The NA immediately notified an LPN, who went to the room and found the resident in bed with the head of the bed elevated and the head tilted to the right. The LPN was unable to locate a radial pulse, observed no chest rise, and noted the resident’s forehead felt cool. The LPN did not pull back the covers to further assess the resident, did not verify the code status, did not announce a code blue, and did not give instructions to the NA. Instead, the LPN called another nurse to come to the unit, stating that before anything could be done, a second nurse was needed, and then waited approximately five minutes for that nurse to arrive. When the second LPN arrived, she found the first LPN and the NA standing outside the resident’s room. Upon entering, she assessed that the resident was not breathing, checked the code status, and determined the resident was full code. She noted the resident’s body was warm and that rigor mortis had not set in, and immediately initiated CPR, directing staff to call 911, announce a code blue, and obtain the AED and crash cart. The facility’s policy specified that for an unresponsive resident with a full code order, EMS should be activated immediately and CPR initiated unless there were obvious signs of clinical death such as rigor mortis, dependent lividity, decapitation, transection, or decomposition, or other specified exceptions. The failure of the first LPN to promptly assess for irreversible signs of death and to immediately initiate CPR and activate EMS for this full code resident resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy citation.
Removal Plan
- Completed an investigation and identified that a nurse failed to initiate CPR immediately on a full code resident found unresponsive.
- Conducted a root cause analysis and identified that CPR was not initiated per facility policy and that delegation of duties during the code situation did not occur.
- Placed the involved nurse on leave pending the investigation and terminated employment.
- Educated staff on the processes and procedures to follow when a resident is found unresponsive.
- Audited and verified all residents’ code statuses as correct.
- Reviewed facility policies.
Failure in Insulin Self-Administration Process
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper self-administration of insulin for a resident, identified as R87, who was reviewed for self-administration of medications. R87 was cognitively intact and independent with most activities of daily living, but had impaired vision and a history of non-compliance with medications. The resident's care plan indicated that R87 was capable of self-administering insulin, and the medication administration record allowed for insulin to be kept in the room for self-administration. However, during observations, it was noted that R87 did not prime the insulin pen before administration, which is a necessary step to ensure the correct dosage is delivered. Interviews with nursing staff revealed that R87 was educated on insulin self-administration and was expected to perform a return demonstration. Despite this, R87 stated that she never primed her insulin pens, believing it was unnecessary. The facility's policy on self-administration of medications required residents to correctly identify their medications and understand their use, but there was no specific policy on priming insulin pens. The director of nursing confirmed that residents should be priming their insulin pens to ensure proper dosage, highlighting a gap in the resident's education and the facility's oversight.
Failure to Provide Proper Nail Care for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper nail care for a resident, identified as R95, who required assistance with personal hygiene due to moderately impaired cognition and lumbar stenosis. The resident's care plan specified that staff should trim his nails as needed during his weekly bath. However, progress notes from November 1 to November 19 lacked documentation that R95's fingernails had been cut or that he had refused to have them cut. Observations on November 18 and 19 revealed that R95's fingernails were approximately 1 inch long, and he expressed a desire to have them cut. Interviews with facility staff, including nursing assistants and a registered nurse, revealed inconsistencies in the responsibility for nail care. Nursing assistants were generally responsible for cutting nails unless the resident was diabetic, in which case nurses were responsible. The director of nursing confirmed this protocol and stated that nail care should be documented in progress notes, including any refusals. Despite these protocols, R95's nails were not trimmed as required, indicating a lapse in the facility's adherence to its policy on activities of daily living.
Failure to Attempt GDR and Obtain Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction (GDR) was attempted for a resident using psychotropic medications. The resident, who had no cognitive impairment and did not exhibit symptoms of depression or anxiety, was prescribed Bupropion and Duloxetine for anxiety. Despite the consultant pharmacist's recommendations for a GDR, these were not received by the facility due to an IT glitch, and the GDR was not attempted. The facility's policy required a GDR within the first year of admission, but the process was not followed due to the communication failure between the consultant pharmacist and the facility. Another deficiency was identified when the facility failed to obtain informed consent for the use of Depakote, a psychotropic medication, for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and behavioral disturbances. The resident's care plan included the use of high-risk medications, and the medication administration record indicated the use of Depakote for restlessness and agitation. However, there was no evidence of a consent form for the use of Depakote, which is required to inform residents or their representatives of the risks, benefits, and potential side effects of the medication. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of awareness that Depakote was considered a psychotropic medication, and the director of nursing acknowledged the need for informed consent when medications are used outside their typical classification. The facility's policy required informed consent for psychotropic medications, but this was not adhered to in the case of the resident receiving Depakote.
Failure to Prime Insulin Pens Leads to Medication Errors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure insulin was administered in accordance with professional standards of practice, resulting in a medication error rate of 9.09%. This deficiency was observed in two residents who were receiving insulin injections. The first resident, identified as R100, had a history of diabetes mellitus and required insulin injections daily. During an observation, an LPN administered insulin without priming the needle, which could potentially result in a subtherapeutic dosage. The resident's care plan and physician orders required regular blood glucose monitoring and specific insulin administration, which were not followed correctly. The second resident, R51, also had a history of diabetes mellitus with complications and required insulin injections. Similarly, an LPN administered insulin without priming the needle, contrary to the manufacturer's instructions. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of understanding regarding the necessity of priming insulin pen needles before administration. The facility did not have a specific insulin pen policy or procedure, relying instead on the manufacturer's instructions, which were not adhered to during the observed incidents.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Incontinence Care and Contact Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to infection control standards during incontinence care for a resident identified as R40. The resident, who had intact cognition and was dependent on staff for toileting due to incontinence, was observed being cared for by a nursing assistant (NA-A) who did not follow proper hand hygiene protocols. NA-A used the same pair of gloves throughout the care process, which included cleaning a bowel movement, applying skin barrier cream, and handling the resident's call light cord. NA-A did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene between these tasks, despite acknowledging the need to do so during a follow-up interview. Additionally, the facility did not implement proper contact precautions for a resident identified as R364, who required such measures due to an ESBL-resistant urinary tract infection. Despite clear signage and available protective equipment outside the resident's room, a physical therapist assistant (PTA) entered the room and assisted the resident without donning a gown or gloves. The PTA acknowledged the oversight during an interview, confirming the expectation to wear protective gear under contact precautions. The facility's infection preventionist reiterated the importance of following hand hygiene and contact precaution protocols as per facility policy.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 742 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 24 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near White Bear Lake
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waverly Gardens | 3.4 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Harmony Gardens | 4.3 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Maplewood Rehabilitation Center | 4.9 mi | — | 26 | 0 |
| Good Samaritan Society - Maplewood | 6.3 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Langton Shores | 6.9 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Cerenity Care Center White Bear Lake.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.