Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
A standard survey is most likely before around December 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 Cura Of Melrose during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia, osteoporosis, and a history of falls had a care plan and Kardex directing that her electric lift recliner remain unplugged and be used only as a stationary chair, with additional interventions such as signage, grip strips, and appropriate non-slip footwear. Despite this, staff and possibly family intermittently plugged in the recliner, staff did not consistently check whether it was plugged in, and the resident was twice found face down on the floor in front of the recliner when it was in the highest position, sustaining a large frontal hematoma, skin tear, and pain requiring ED evaluation. Observations also showed the resident wearing regular nylon socks instead of anti-slip footwear, and staff interviews confirmed that the care-planned interventions for the recliner and footwear were not reliably implemented, contrary to facility policy that staff follow the care plan and Kardex.
A resident with parkinsonism, dementia, and other conditions had a care plan and hot liquid safety evaluation requiring use of covered mugs for hot beverages outside the dining room after prior coffee spills and documented thigh burns from a coffee spill. Despite this, the resident was later observed in her room with a hot coffee cup without a lid, and she reported that staff had not been providing the required cover. A NA-C, an RN, and the interim DON all acknowledged that the resident was supposed to have covered cups per the care plan, but this intervention was not consistently implemented.
A resident with dementia and impaired mobility, requiring a full body mechanical lift and two staff for transfers, was instead pivot-transferred by a nursing assistant who did not consult the care plan or use a gait belt. The resident fell, later developed pain and swelling, and was diagnosed with a fractured fibula. Staff interviews confirmed the care plan was not followed and facility policy was not adhered to.
A resident with dementia and impaired mobility, who required transfer with a mechanical lift, was instead pivot transferred by a staff member, resulting in a fall and a fractured ankle. The facility's report to the SA omitted the fact that the care plan was not followed, and the DON did not provide full details about the incident or the root cause, despite being aware of the deviation from the care plan.
A resident did not receive appropriate care for existing pressure ulcers, and the facility did not implement adequate measures to prevent new ulcers from developing.
Staff did not promptly inform a resident, their physician, and a family member about important events such as injury, decline, or room changes, resulting in a breakdown of required communication.
Staff failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions and proper hand hygiene while providing care to a resident with a suprapubic catheter, open wound, and UTI. Despite clear signage and available PPE, staff did not consistently wear gowns or perform hand hygiene during high-contact care activities, including catheter and wound care, as confirmed by staff interviews and direct observation.
The facility failed to provide timely call light responses for four residents, leading to incidents of incontinence and frustration. Device activity reports showed response times exceeding two hours. Staff felt rushed, contributing to delays, and the DON acknowledged the issue, with expected response times not being met.
The facility failed to implement necessary interventions for two residents to prevent further decline in range of motion and mobility. One resident with a history of stroke and hemiplegia had inconsistent completion of passive range of motion exercises, while another cognitively impaired resident's program was rarely completed. Staff cited time constraints as a reason for not performing the exercises, and documentation often lacked rationale for non-completion.
Failure to Follow Care Plan for Lift Recliner and Fall-Prevention Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and follow care-planned safety interventions for a resident with a history of falls and use of an electric lift recliner, resulting in an avoidable accident with actual harm. The resident had dementia, depression, overactive bladder, and osteoporosis, and the MDS showed intact cognition but a need for substantial to maximal assistance with transfers and toileting. The care plan, revised in December, identified risk for injury related to falls and specifically to electric recliner use, with interventions including keeping the electric lift recliner unplugged so it functioned only as a stationary chair, use of appropriate footwear, grip strips in the room, and signage. The Kardex also instructed staff, per therapy, to keep the recliner unplugged to promote safety. Despite these documented interventions, the resident experienced multiple falls associated with the recliner. An incident report from late May documented the resident being found face down on the floor in front of the recliner, which was in the highest position, suggesting an attempted self-transfer; the post-fall investigation concluded the resident appeared to have attempted to self-transfer and directed that the recliner remain unplugged. A subsequent incident in mid-December again found the resident face down on the floor with pooling blood, a large frontal hematoma, a skin tear, and complaints of hip, elbow, and neck pain, with the recliner again in the highest position. The post-fall investigation and ED provider note both indicated the resident attempted to get out of the lift chair after it had been plugged in, despite the care plan stating the chair was to remain unplugged. Staff interviews confirmed that the care plan intervention to keep the recliner unplugged was not consistently followed. Nursing staff and NAs acknowledged awareness that the recliner was not supposed to be plugged in due to prior falls but reported they did not routinely check whether it was plugged in, sometimes assuming no one would have plugged it in. Staff and a family member stated that both staff and family had plugged in the chair at times, and the family member reported the resident would not have been able to plug it in herself. Observations also showed the resident seated in a wheelchair with regular nylon socks rather than anti-slip footwear, even though appropriate footwear was a listed intervention in the care plan. The facility’s own policy stated that the care plan is to guide daily care and that the Kardex is comprised of care plan interventions, and that health care personnel are responsible for following the care plan, yet the interventions related to the recliner and footwear were not implemented as written.
Failure to Follow Care Plan for Hot Liquid Burn Prevention
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement care-planned interventions to reduce a resident’s risk for burns from hot liquids. The resident had diagnoses including parkinsonism, depression, anxiety, and dementia, but was care planned as having intact cognition and able to eat independently. Her care plan, dated 12/11/25, identified a risk for altered nutritional status and directed staff to provide covered mugs for hot liquids when she was outside the dining room. A Hot Liquid Safety Evaluation dated 9/19/25 documented that hot liquid temperatures were not to exceed 180 degrees and noted an isolated coffee spill event on 9/16/25, with follow-up completed on 9/17/25. Progress notes from 9/17/25 recorded that the resident reported spilling coffee in her lap while watching television and stated the coffee was “luke warm at best,” and the event was considered isolated. On 12/10/25, progress notes documented pink/red areas on the resident’s left inner thigh (10 cm x 6 cm) and right inner thigh (13 cm x 3 cm), warm to touch and tender, with the cause identified as the resident spilling coffee in her lap. Staff were then directed to put covers on hot liquids when she took them outside the dining room, and an interdisciplinary team review on 12/11/25 confirmed that she had spilled coffee while attending a movie activity and that the care plan was updated to require covered mugs for hot beverages outside the dining room. However, during an observation on 1/14/26, the resident was seen in her room with a hot coffee cup without a lid and stated she was supposed to have a lid but staff had not given her one. A NA-C and RN both indicated the resident was supposed to have covered cups when not in the dining room, and the interim DON stated the resident should have a cover on her cup as directed in the care plan. Facility policy stated that the care plan is to be used to develop residents’ daily care routines and that health care personnel are responsible for following the care plan, but this was not followed for this resident’s hot liquid precautions.
Failure to Follow Care Plan During Transfer Results in Resident Fracture
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when staff failed to follow a resident's care plan during a staff-assisted transfer, resulting in a fall and subsequent fracture. The resident, who had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and osteoporosis, was non-ambulatory and had a care plan requiring the use of a full body mechanical lift (EZ lift) with assistance from two staff members for transfers due to being non-weight bearing on the right lower extremity. Despite this, a nursing assistant attempted a pivot transfer without a gait belt, believing the resident could stand independently, and did not consult the resident's Kardex or care plan prior to the transfer. During the transfer, the resident's legs became weak, and the staff member assisted her to the floor. Initially, no injuries were noted, but the resident later developed pain, swelling, and bruising in the right foot. An x-ray confirmed a slightly displaced fracture of the distal fibula. The resident reported significant pain following the incident, and her family was notified. Interviews revealed that the nursing assistant had not worked regularly at the facility and did not review the care plan or use a gait belt as required by facility policy. Other staff members confirmed that the resident's transfer status had recently changed and that staff were expected to review each resident's Kardex before providing assistance. The facility's policy required verification of transfer status and the use of appropriate equipment, such as a gait belt or mechanical lift, based on the resident's care plan. The failure to follow these protocols directly led to the resident's fall and injury.
Failure to Accurately Report Incident and Care Plan Deviation to State Agency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to submit a report to the State Agency (SA) with sufficient and accurate information regarding an incident involving a resident with Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and impaired mobility. The resident, who was non-ambulatory and required transfer assistance using an EZ mechanical stand with one staff member, experienced a staff-assisted fall when a nursing assistant attempted a pivot transfer instead of using the required mechanical lift. This deviation from the care plan resulted in the resident being lowered to the floor, and subsequent imaging revealed a slightly displaced fracture of the distal fibula. The incident report submitted to the SA did not include the critical detail that the resident was transferred by pivot with one staff member rather than with the mechanical lift as required by the care plan. Further review of communications and interviews revealed that the Director of Nursing (DON) did not provide complete information to the SA regarding the root cause of the fall or the failure to follow the resident's care plan, despite being aware of these facts from internal reports and staff communications. The DON confirmed that the report was submitted after the fracture was identified but was unsure why the report omitted the details about the improper transfer method. Additionally, the facility had not conducted a full investigation or interviewed the involved staff or resident before submitting the report, even though the incident report and verbal communications indicated the care plan was not followed.
Failure to Provide and Prevent Pressure Ulcer Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate care for pressure ulcers and did not take adequate measures to prevent the development of new ulcers. This deficiency indicates that the necessary interventions and monitoring to manage existing pressure ulcers and prevent additional ones were not implemented as required.
Failure to Notify Resident, Physician, and Family of Significant Events
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to immediately notify the resident, the resident's physician, and a family member about situations that affected the resident, such as injury, decline, or changes in room assignment. This lack of timely communication was observed and documented by surveyors as a deficiency in the facility's process for keeping relevant parties informed about significant events impacting the resident's care or condition.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions and Hand Hygiene During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement adequate infection prevention and control practices for a resident requiring enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) due to the presence of an indwelling suprapubic catheter, an open stage three pressure ulcer, and a current urinary tract infection (UTI). The resident had multiple diagnoses, including neurogenic bladder, dementia, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis, and required substantial assistance with activities of daily living. The care plan directed staff to monitor the catheter and wound but did not include EBP instructions. During direct care, staff entered the resident's room without donning required personal protective equipment (PPE), specifically gowns and gloves, despite clear EBP signage and available supplies outside the room. Staff assisted the resident with transferring, catheter care, wound care, and personal hygiene without consistently using gowns, and at times failed to perform hand hygiene between glove changes. Observations included staff handling soiled items, performing dressing changes, and providing peri care without proper PPE or hand hygiene, even after exposure to urine and wound sites. Interviews with the involved nursing assistants and LPN confirmed awareness of the EBP requirements and acknowledged lapses in following protocol, attributing failures to forgetfulness or unexpected care needs. The director of nursing also confirmed that staff were expected to follow EBP signage and that sitting on the floor during care was not recommended due to infection control concerns. Facility policy and posted signage clearly outlined the need for gown and glove use during high-contact care activities for residents on EBP, which was not followed in this instance.
Excessive Call Light Response Times in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a reasonable call light response time for four residents, all of whom were cognitively intact and had various medical conditions such as anemia, hypertension, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The device activity reports indicated numerous instances of excessive call light response times, with some exceeding two hours. These delays resulted in residents being unable to reach the restroom in time, leading to incidents of incontinence and feelings of frustration and anger among the residents. Interviews with staff, including a nursing assistant and an LPN, revealed that they felt rushed and unable to spend adequate time with residents, contributing to the long response times. The director of nursing acknowledged the issue, confirming that the facility's call light logs reflected excessively long wait times. The expected response time was stated to be 15 minutes, but this standard was not met, as evidenced by the residents' experiences and the device activity reports.
Failure to Implement Range of Motion Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement necessary interventions to prevent further decline in range of motion and mobility for two residents. One resident, who had a history of stroke, arthritis, and hemiplegia, was observed with limited range of motion in his upper body. Despite having a care plan that included passive range of motion exercises, documentation showed inconsistent completion of these exercises, with numerous instances of missing documentation or the task being marked as not applicable. Interviews with staff revealed that the exercises were often not performed due to time constraints, and the importance of these exercises was emphasized by the director of therapy. Another resident, who was severely cognitively impaired and had multiple diagnoses including dementia and malnutrition, was also on a restorative nursing program for passive range of motion. However, documentation indicated that the program was rarely completed, with many days marked as not applicable. Interviews with staff and family members confirmed that the exercises were only performed when staff had time, and there was no rationale documented for the lack of completion. The director of nursing acknowledged the importance of completing these exercises to maintain the residents' current health status.
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 26 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — 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 Melrose
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cura Of Sauk Centre | 8 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
| Benedictine Living Community | Mother Of Mercy | 12.1 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
| Belgrade Nursing Home | 18.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Cura Of Long Prairie | 20.6 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Galeon | 21 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Cura Of Melrose.
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.