Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around May 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Cura Of Long Prairie during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to respond to call lights in a timely manner, leading to delayed toileting assistance and compromised dignity for several residents with mobility limitations, incontinence, constipation, and diuretic use. Call light logs showed repeated response times ranging from about 13 to over 40 minutes, while residents reported waiting up to 30 minutes or more, sometimes resulting in urinary incontinence and significant distress. One resident with chronic constipation and mixed incontinence described waiting so long after lunch for help to the bathroom that she had to flag down therapy staff in the hallway. Another resident on diuretics, requiring help with a urinal, became incontinent in his brief while waiting for staff to respond. Additional residents reported frequent long waits, embarrassment from not reaching the bathroom in time, and frustration that they could not toilet independently. Staff interviews confirmed an expectation of answering call lights within about five to seven minutes, acknowledged that this often did not occur during busy times, and noted that residents across the building complained about long call light wait times, while the DON confirmed there was no written call light policy.
Staff did not wear required PPE, including gowns and gloves, while repositioning a resident on enhanced barrier precautions for MDRO prevention, despite facility policy and care plan instructions. Multiple staff made direct contact with the resident and bedding without PPE during high-contact care activities.
Untimely Call Light Response and Delayed Toileting Assistance Compromising Resident Dignity
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to answer resident call lights in a timely manner, resulting in delayed toileting assistance and compromised dignity for multiple residents. Call light response logs for several days showed repeated response times ranging from approximately 13 to over 40 minutes, despite residents’ documented needs for prompt toileting due to incontinence, diuretic use, constipation, and mobility limitations. The facility did not have a call light policy or a defined maximum wait time, and staff interviews revealed varying expectations for response times, generally around five to seven minutes, which were not consistently met, especially during high-activity periods such as mornings and mealtimes. One resident with intact cognition, chronic constipation, mixed urinary incontinence, and limited shoulder mobility required substantial assistance with toileting and transfers and was on a bowel regimen. Her care plan and bowel/bladder assessment directed staff to offer toileting at specific times, including before and after meals and at bedtime. Call light logs showed numerous instances where her call light remained unanswered for 18 to over 40 minutes. She reported that after lunch she activated her call light for help to have a BM, was unable to wait long when she had the urge, and ultimately had to flag down a therapy staff member in the hallway because no one responded for what she described as over an hour. She described feeling miserable, surprised she could hold her bowels that long, and stated that long waits occurred at least weekly, more often on day shift, and that she had small urine accidents because she could not get to the bathroom in time. Another resident with intact cognition, morbid obesity, impaired mobility, and on diuretics required substantial assistance with toileting hygiene and transfers and used a urinal with staff help. Call light data showed multiple delays between roughly 13 and 20 minutes. During one observation, he had already activated his call light for help with the urinal and reported that in the past it had taken up to 30 minutes to get assistance, and that long waits had been occurring for some time. During the observed episode, staff did not arrive for approximately 15 minutes, by which time he had already become incontinent in his brief and expressed embarrassment and frustration. He stated he had discussed long call light waits with other residents while staff were present, but the wait times did not improve. A third resident with impaired vision, hip fracture, impaired mobility, and urinary incontinence used a wrist call light and required assistance with ambulation and transfers, including use of a stand lift with total assist of two. Her assessment noted she had to rush to the bathroom when she felt the urge to void. Call light logs documented at least one instance where her call light was not answered for more than 15 minutes. She reported that while most staff answered quickly, she had waited up to 20 minutes at times, during which the urine came too fast for her to reach the bathroom, leading to incontinence episodes that made her feel upset and embarrassed. She also commented on staff turnover and some staff being on their cell phones frequently. A fourth resident with dementia, impaired mobility, and on diuretics and other psychotropic medications was dependent for transfers and toileting and used a four-point lift. Her care plan and assessments indicated she was continent of bowel and bladder, used the call light, and could report when she needed to void. However, nursing assistant documentation showed at least two episodes of urinary incontinence, and call light logs revealed multiple delays between approximately 14 and 37 minutes. She reported waiting up to 25 minutes for assistance at times, nearly urinating in her pants, and feeling upset and angry when unable to get to the bathroom when needed. She stated that long waits occurred every couple of days, more often during mealtimes, and that while she had not yet become incontinent on some days, she was frustrated that she could not take herself to the bathroom. Staff interviews confirmed that the expectation was to answer call lights within about five to seven minutes, and staff acknowledged that this often did not occur, particularly during early mornings, mealtimes, and evening “rush to bed” periods. Multiple nursing assistants stated that long waits could lead to residents attempting self-transfers, falls, or incontinence, and that residents across the building had voiced concerns about long call light times. One assistant described residents in the dining room discussing their frustration and using the call light cancel and re-press function to make their calls appear more recent. Another assistant reported witnessing a resident fall after attempting to self-transfer with the call light on. The DON confirmed there was no written call light policy and no specific maximum wait time in facility policies, while facility resident rights and dignity policies required that residents be treated with dignity and that staff promptly respond to requests for toileting assistance.
Failure to Use PPE During Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to use proper personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care to a resident on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for the prevention of multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO) transmission. The resident had moderate cognitive impairment, an unhealed stage two pressure ulcer, and a skin tear, and their care plan required the use of gown and gloves during high-contact care activities. During an observed medication pass, three staff members repositioned the resident and assisted with drinking water, making contact with the resident and bedding multiple times without wearing PPE. Interviews with the involved nursing assistants and trained medication assistant confirmed awareness that the resident was on EBP, but they stated they only wore gowns for certain personal care activities, such as changing briefs or wound care. The infection prevention RN and DON both confirmed that PPE should have been worn during repositioning and adjusting bedding, as indicated by facility policy and signage. Facility policy, dated March 2025, specified following CDC guidelines for gown and glove use during high-contact care to reduce MDRO transmission.
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 40 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 Long Prairie
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central Todd County Care Center | 8.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Cura Of Sauk Centre | 16.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Galeon | 16.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Cura Of Melrose | 20.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 14 | 0 |
| St Ottos Care Center | 23.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Cura Of Long Prairie.
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 July 2026) and official state health department websites.