Stay Ahead of Compliance with Monthly Citation Updates


In your State Survey window and need a snapshot of your risks?

Survey Preparedness Report

One Time Fee
$79
  • Last 12 months of citation data in one tailored report
  • Pinpoint the tags driving penalties in facilities like yours
  • Jump to regulations and pathways used by surveyors
  • Access to your report within 2 hours of purchase
  • Easily share it with your team - no registration needed
Get Your Report Now →

Monthly citation updates straight to your inbox for ongoing preparation?

Monthly Citation Reports

$18.90 per month
  • Latest citation updates delivered monthly to your email
  • Citations organized by compliance areas
  • Shared automatically with your team, by area
  • Customizable for your state(s) of interest
  • Direct links to CMS documentation relevant parts
Learn more →

Save Hours of Work with AI-Powered Plan of Correction Writer


One-Time Fee

$49 per Plan of Correction
Volume discounts available – save up to 20%
  • Quickly search for approved POC from other facilities
  • Instant access
  • Intuitive interface
  • No recurring fees
  • Save hours of work
F0838
F

Failure to Identify and Document Minimum Staffing Requirements in Facility Assessment

Rochester, Minnesota Survey Completed on 07-29-2025

Penalty

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The facility failed to review and update its facility-wide assessment to identify the minimum or baseline number of direct care and licensed staff required to meet residents' needs during both routine operations and emergencies. The assessment did not specify staffing hours per resident day (PPD) goals or the breakdown between licensed and direct care staff necessary to provide care based on residents' diagnoses, assessed needs, and comprehensive care plans. The assessment process described was fluid and based on daily evaluations by the nursing department and interdisciplinary team, but lacked concrete staffing numbers or ratios. The special memory care unit was noted to require special staffing considerations, but no specific minimums were documented. Interviews with staff revealed that daily staffing decisions were made based on the DON's direction and current census, with a general target of 3.3 to 3.4 PPD, but without a formalized or documented staffing plan in the facility assessment. The scheduler and DON both confirmed that the assessment did not identify the number or type of staff needed for each shift. Additionally, the facility assessment policy was requested but not provided. This deficiency had the potential to affect all 51 residents in the facility.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙