Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens 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 Jones Harrison Residence during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A deficiency was cited when a resident's care plan did not address all identified needs and failed to include measurable timetables and specific actions, as observed in the resident's records during the survey.
The facility failed to test chemical levels in the sanitizing sink, improperly stored dry goods, and did not consistently monitor food temperatures before serving meals. These deficiencies were confirmed by the culinary coordinator and regional kitchen manager, highlighting lapses in food safety and sanitation practices.
A facility failed to assess and develop a trauma-informed care plan for a resident with a significant trauma history, including PTSD. The resident's care plan initially lacked trauma-informed care details, which were only added after a survey. Staff interviews revealed a lack of specific interventions for the resident's trauma, highlighting a deficiency in the facility's approach.
A resident receiving over 50% of her calories through a feeding tube was found to have a dried substance, likely tube feeding solution, on her furniture and floor. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness, and staff interviews revealed uncertainty about cleaning responsibilities. A cleaning policy was not provided.
A resident with chronic pain conditions did not receive timely and effective pain management interventions. Despite being on a pain medication regimen, the resident frequently reported high pain levels, and follow-up assessments were often delayed or not conducted. The facility staff failed to notify the provider about the ineffectiveness of the pain management plan, and there was no consistent procedure for addressing unmet pain goals.
The facility failed to time-limit PRN psychotropic medication orders to 14 days and did not document the rationale for continuation beyond this period for two residents. One resident had an indefinite order for lorazepam without provider review, while another had a PRN order for Compazine without an end date or rationale. Additionally, a Trazodone order lacked an indication for use, leaving staff uncertain about its purpose. Interviews confirmed the expectation for 14-day limits and clear documentation of medication indications.
Two residents in the facility were not offered or educated about the PCV20 pneumococcal vaccine, despite being eligible according to CDC guidelines. Both residents, who were severely cognitively impaired and had multiple health conditions, had received previous pneumococcal vaccinations but lacked documentation of being offered the PCV20. Interviews with staff confirmed the oversight, and the facility did not provide a vaccination policy when requested.
A facility failed to offer a COVID-19 vaccination to a resident who was eligible and had no documented refusal. The resident, who was cognitively intact and had several medical conditions, had no COVID-19 vaccination record in the system. The infection preventionist and DON confirmed the oversight, and the facility lacked a documented vaccination policy.
A resident admitted to the facility exhibited aggressive behaviors and had a complex medical history, but a comprehensive baseline care plan was not developed within the required 48 hours. This delay led to the resident falling and sustaining a hip fracture. The facility's policy required a baseline assessment within 24 hours, but it was not completed on time, contributing to the incident.
Incomplete Care Plan Lacking Measurable Actions
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified due to the failure to develop and implement a complete care plan that addresses all of a resident's needs. The care plan lacked measurable timetables and specific actions, resulting in incomplete documentation and planning for the resident's care requirements. This omission was observed during the survey process and was based on a review of the resident's records, which did not contain a comprehensive or individualized care plan as required.
Deficiencies in Food Safety and Sanitation Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly test the levels of chemicals used in the three-compartment sink for sanitizing pots used in meal preparation. During an observation, it was noted that the facility did not have a testing log available for the chemical sanitization process, and the staff had not been testing the chemical levels. The culinary coordinator (CC) and the regional kitchen manager (RKM) confirmed that the pots used for food preparation were washed in the three-compartment sink and not in the dishwasher, indicating a lapse in ensuring proper sanitation. Additionally, the facility did not store dry goods in a manner that reduced the risk of cross-contamination. During a kitchen tour, two white plastic bins labeled for flour and sugar were found on the floor, with a scoop left inside the flour bin, touching the product. This practice was acknowledged by the CC as inappropriate and posed a risk for cross-contamination. The facility also failed to properly monitor food temperatures before serving meals to residents. The daily temperature logs for the steam table were incomplete, with several instances of missing temperature documentation for meals. The CC and RKM verified the incomplete logs and noted that the cooks and dietary aides were relying on each other to check temperatures, leading to inconsistencies. The absence of a single, reliable temperature log contributed to the deficiency in monitoring food safety.
Deficiency in Trauma-Informed Care for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comprehensively assess and develop a person-centered care plan for a resident with a history of trauma, including monitoring for PTSD. The resident, who was cognitively intact, had a history of significant trauma, including an alcoholic father, loss of siblings and children, and an abusive partner. Despite these factors, the resident's care plan initially lacked any information on trauma-informed care or trauma triggers. It was only updated to include such information three days after the survey entrance. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of awareness and specific interventions related to the resident's trauma history. A CNA and RN familiar with the resident were unable to identify trauma-informed care interventions specific to the resident. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the importance of addressing trauma in care plans and confirmed that the resident's care plan had been updated post-survey to include trauma-informed care, triggers, and interventions. However, prior to this update, the care plan did not address these critical aspects, indicating a deficiency in the facility's approach to trauma-informed care.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary Environment for Resident with Feeding Tube
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a sanitary and homelike environment for a resident who relied on a feeding tube for over 50% of her caloric intake. During observations, a dried light brown/yellow substance, suspected to be tube feeding solution, was found on the resident's feeding tube pole, dresser, bed, and floor. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of her room, noting that the substance had been present for several months and was not cleaned regularly by the staff. Interviews with the nursing staff revealed a lack of clarity regarding the responsibility for cleaning the resident's room. The registered nurse in charge of the resident's care was unaware of how long the substance had been present, and the unit nurse manager stated that nursing staff should have cleaned the spills as they occurred, with housekeeping being called if necessary. Despite these expectations, the policy regarding resident room cleaning was not provided, indicating a possible gap in procedural guidance.
Inadequate Pain Management for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that care plan interventions were followed and new interventions were implemented in a timely manner when a resident's pain goals were not met. The resident, identified as R44, had a history of lumbar spinal stenosis with radiculopathy, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and failed back surgery syndrome, which contributed to her chronic pain. Despite being on a scheduled and as-needed pain medication regimen, R44 reported constant pain that affected her sleep and daily activities. Her pain management plan included various medications such as Tylenol, gabapentin, lidocaine patches, diclofenac gel, hydromorphone, and tramadol, but her pain was often rated at a seven or eight out of ten, far from her goal of zero. The report highlights several instances where the facility's staff did not adequately follow up on R44's pain management. On multiple occasions, tramadol was administered for high pain scores, but follow-up assessments were either delayed or not conducted, and the medication was often documented as ineffective. Despite the resident's reports of inadequate pain relief, there was no evidence that the nursing staff consistently notified the provider or implemented new pain interventions. The nurse practitioner managing R44's pain plan stated she had not received reports from the nursing staff about the ineffectiveness of the current pain management plan. Interviews with the facility's staff revealed a lack of consistent procedures for addressing unmet pain goals. The registered nurse and unit nurse manager both indicated that trained medication aides were responsible for assessing pain levels and following up on the effectiveness of pain interventions. However, there was confusion about the expected timeline for re-evaluating pain levels after administering medication. The facility's failure to provide a policy on resident pain management further underscores the lack of a structured approach to addressing pain management deficiencies.
Failure to Time-Limit PRN Psychotropic Medications and Document Indications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that PRN psychotropic medication orders were time-limited to 14 days and did not document the rationale and duration for continuation beyond this period for two residents. One resident, who was moderately cognitively impaired and receiving hospice services, had an order for lorazepam without a specified stop date, and there was no evidence of provider review for discontinuation or renewal every 14 days. The facility's policy required PRN orders for psychotropic drugs to be limited to 14 days unless extended with documented rationale, which was not adhered to in this case. Another resident, who was cognitively intact and had multiple diagnoses including bipolar disorder and anxiety, had a PRN order for Compazine without an end date or rationale for continuation beyond 14 days. Additionally, this resident had an order for Trazodone that lacked an indication for use, leaving staff uncertain about the medication's purpose. Interviews with facility staff, including the DON, confirmed the expectation that all PRN psychotropic medications should have a 14-day end date and that indications for use should be clearly documented to ensure proper assessment of medication effectiveness.
Failure to Offer and Document Pneumococcal Vaccination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two residents, who were reviewed for immunizations, were offered, educated, and/or provided the pneumococcal vaccine series as recommended by the CDC. The CDC guidelines specify the administration of the Pneumococcal 20-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) for adults who have previously received the Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) and the Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV23). However, the medical records for these residents did not indicate that they had been offered or educated about the benefits of receiving the PCV20 vaccination. Resident 25, who was severely cognitively impaired and had multiple diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease and Alzheimer's disease, had received the PPSV23 vaccine but lacked documentation of being offered the PCV20 vaccine. Similarly, Resident 85, also severely cognitively impaired with conditions such as heart failure and diabetes mellitus, had received both PCV13 and PPSV23 but not the PCV20. Interviews with the infection preventionist and the director of nursing confirmed the absence of documentation and the failure to offer the PCV20 vaccine to these residents. The facility did not provide a vaccination policy when requested.
Failure to Offer COVID-19 Vaccination to Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the COVID-19 vaccination was offered and/or provided to a resident, identified as R58, who was reviewed for immunizations. According to the report, R58 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses including anemia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and anxiety disorder. The resident's immunization records in the Point Click Care system lacked documentation for the COVID-19 vaccination. During an interview, the infection preventionist confirmed that R58 was eligible for the COVID-19 vaccination but had not been offered the vaccine, nor had the resident refused it. The director of nursing confirmed that R58 had not been offered or received the COVID-19 vaccination. The director stated that the expectation was for all residents to be educated on the risks and benefits of vaccinations and to be offered any eligible vaccinations. The facility did not provide a vaccination policy when requested, indicating a lack of documented procedures to ensure compliance with vaccination protocols. This deficiency was identified during a review of the facility's practices and interviews with staff.
Failure to Develop Timely Baseline Care Plan Leads to Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive baseline care plan within 48 hours after the admission of a resident, leading to a deficiency. The resident, who was admitted on a stretcher from the hospital, exhibited behaviors such as hitting staff and attempting to stand up, which required close observation to prevent falls. Despite these behaviors and the resident's medical history, including a brain disorder, breast cancer, and heart disease, a comprehensive care plan was not created until nine days after admission. This delay in care planning coincided with the resident falling and sustaining a hip fracture. The facility's policy required a baseline assessment to be completed within the first 24 hours of admission, which would then inform the baseline care plan. However, the assessment was not completed in a timely manner, and the care plan was not updated with the necessary interventions. Interviews with nursing staff and the director of nursing revealed that the evening shift typically handled admissions, and the resident's confusion and aggressive behavior hampered the assessment process. The failure to complete the assessment and care plan within the required timeframe contributed to the resident's fall and subsequent injury.
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 801 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 25 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 Minneapolis
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Villas At The Park | 0.9 mi | — | 11 | 0 |
| Southside Care Center | 1.8 mi | — | 28 | 1 |
| Birchwood Care Home | 1.9 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
| Redeemer Health Care Center | 2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Villas At Bryn Mawr Llc | 2 mi | — | 5 | 3 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Jones Harrison Residence.
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.