Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
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 Waverly Gardens during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to hold quarterly care conferences for a resident, as required by policy. The last documented conference was in January, despite the resident being admitted in August and being cognitively intact. Staff interviews confirmed the oversight, with a scheduled conference not occurring due to the representative's unavailability. Although video calls were arranged, they were not documented as formal care conferences.
The facility failed to implement ROM programs for three residents, leading to incomplete documentation and unaddressed mobility needs. Despite care plans outlining daily ROM exercises, tasks were often marked as 'not applicable' or 'resident refused' without explanation. Staff interviews revealed time constraints and lack of resident presence as reasons for incomplete tasks. The Director of Nursing confirmed the deficiency, and the facility's ROM policy was not provided.
A facility failed to act on a consultant pharmacist's recommendations for a resident receiving high-risk medications, including sliding scale insulin and PRN Ativan. The pharmacist's recommendations, documented in May and June, were not signed by a provider until September, due to communication lapses and process failures. The resident had multiple diagnoses and was on hospice care, highlighting the importance of timely medication review.
The facility did not post accessible contact information for the Ombudsman, leaving residents unaware of how to contact this advocate. During a survey, it was confirmed that no such information was visible in the facility, and the DON and administrator acknowledged this oversight. No policy was provided regarding the posting of Ombudsman information.
Failure to Conduct Quarterly Care Conferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct quarterly care conference meetings with a resident and their representative, as required by their policy. The resident, identified as R13, was admitted to the facility on 8/28/24 and was cognitively intact. The last documented care conference for R13 occurred on 1/5/24, despite the facility's policy mandating quarterly reviews. Interviews with staff revealed that a care conference was scheduled but did not occur due to the unavailability of R13's representative, and the oversight was not corrected. During interviews, the nurse manager and social worker confirmed the lapse in holding the required care conference. The social worker acknowledged her responsibility to schedule these conferences and admitted that no documented care conference had taken place for R13 since January. Although video calls between R13 and their family were arranged, these were not documented as formal care conferences. The facility's policy clearly states that care plans should be reviewed quarterly and with any significant change, emphasizing the importance of these meetings for resident care.
Failure to Implement ROM Programs for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement interventions to prevent further development of decreased range of motion (ROM) for three residents, identified as R2, R4, and R28, who were reviewed for positioning and mobility. R2, who had a moderate cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including Parkinson's disease and epilepsy, was supposed to participate in an ambulation program and an active ROM program for both upper and lower extremities. However, documentation revealed that these programs were not consistently completed, with numerous instances marked as 'not applicable' or 'resident refused' without any documented rationale. R4, with severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses such as Alzheimer's and depression, had a care plan that included a daily ROM program for both upper and lower extremities. Despite this, the ROM tasks were not consistently completed, and similar to R2, there was a lack of documentation explaining why the tasks were marked as 'not applicable' or incomplete. R28, who had a moderate cognitive impairment and conditions like a stroke and hemiplegia, was also supposed to receive a passive ROM program for the left upper and lower extremities. The documentation showed that these tasks were frequently not completed, with many instances marked as 'not applicable' or 'resident refused' without explanation. Interviews with staff, including nursing assistants and registered nurses, revealed that ROM programs were sometimes not completed due to time constraints or if the resident was not on the unit. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the ROM programs for these residents were not being completed as ordered and emphasized the importance of these programs in maintaining residents' functional levels. The facility's ROM policy was requested but not provided, further highlighting the deficiency in ensuring proper care and documentation for residents' mobility needs.
Failure to Act on Pharmacist Recommendations for Medication Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to act upon the consultant pharmacist's recommendations for a resident identified as R11, who was reviewed for unnecessary medications. R11 had multiple diagnoses, including heart failure, diabetes, dementia, and anxiety, and was receiving high-risk drug classes such as antipsychotics, antianxiety, antidepressants, opioids, antiplatelets, and hypoglycemic medications. The resident was also on hospice care. The consultant pharmacist recommended reassessing the use of sliding scale insulin (SSI) and PRN Ativan due to potential risks highlighted by the AGS Beers criteria and CMS guidelines. However, these recommendations were not acted upon in a timely manner. The consultant pharmacist's recommendations were documented in the Consultant Pharmacist Communication to Physician (CPCP) forms dated 5/13/24 and 6/11/24. These forms were not signed by the physician or provider until 9/24/24, indicating a delay in addressing the pharmacist's concerns. The facility's process involved the Director of Nursing (DON) forwarding these forms to the appropriate provider for review and signature, which did not occur as expected. The DON acknowledged the oversight and was unable to explain why the forms were not processed sooner. Interviews with the consultant pharmacist, nurse practitioner (NP), and DON revealed gaps in communication and process adherence. The consultant pharmacist stated that it was the facility's responsibility to ensure the recommendations were forwarded to the appropriate provider. The NP mentioned being out of town during the months when the recommendations were made, which contributed to the delay. The facility's policy required all pharmacist recommendations to be reviewed with the primary physician or NP before implementation, but this was not followed, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Post Ombudsman Contact Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to post accessible contact information for all pertinent State agencies and the Ombudsman, which is a requirement for ensuring residents have the necessary resources to file complaints or seek advocacy. During a resident council meeting, four residents who regularly attended these meetings expressed their unawareness of the Ombudsman and the location of any related information within the facility. This lack of awareness was confirmed during the survey conducted from September 23 to September 26, 2024, where no postings or contact information for the Ombudsman were observed in the facility. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the administrator acknowledged the absence of posted Ombudsman information, initially believing that social services had the information. However, it was not accessible to residents or visitors unless specifically requested. The administrator later provided a business card for the Ombudsman but confirmed it was not posted. The DON reiterated the importance of having this information available as the Ombudsman serves as an advocate for residents. No policy regarding the posting of Ombudsman information was provided upon request.
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 740 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 North Oaks
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cerenity Care Center White Bear Lake | 3.4 mi | — | 8 | 1 |
| Harmony Gardens | 7.2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Langton Shores | 7.5 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| The Villas At New Brighton | 7.6 mi | — | 17 | 1 |
| New Brighton Care Center | 7.9 mi | — | 12 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Waverly Gardens.
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.