Search for Skilled Nursing by ZIP Code:  :

The Estates At Roseville LLC

  1. Skilled Nursing Home Facilities
  2. Minnesota
  3. Roseville Skilled Nursing Home Facilities
Full Name

Phone Number

Email Address

City of interest
We value your privacy. By submitting this form, you agree to the terms and conditions of our privacy policy and our Agreement to be Contacted by Telephone. You also consent that we, or our partner providers, can reach out to you using a system that can auto-dial. Your consent is not required to use our service.

Photos

Reviews
Overall Rating 3.4 / 5.0 ★★★★★

  • Susan McCaffery
    ★★★★★ 3 weeks ago

    My mother was at this facility and the staff loved her like their own. Everytime I visited, the staff were so friendly, really showed a genuine care and concern for my mom and me. It really meant a lot to me to know mom was well taken care of.

  • Lori Fredrickson
    ★★★★★ 3 weeks ago

    The staff is wonderful! They have been amazing for the short stay my husband for rehab. They also have great activities. We loved playing bingo!

  • katie olson
    ★★★★★ in the last week

    Horrible place. Killed my elderly mother in my view. She went in with weakness from stroke....she told me she had a mean nurse's aide. Next day granddaughter came in to visit.....grandma was alone sitting on toilet, crying, said couldn't breathe. Grandchild noticed NO oxygen! She was dependent! Called nurse said he was told an aide had her off oxygen over 15 minutes! Called ambulance died 40 days later U of M. Also was there 2 other times....call lights and emerg call buttons NEVER working!!! How do they get by with this? Is the State really checking? People with 5 stars.....are you really visiting? Or once a month. Keep your eye on loved one's. This place is place is also old and depressing.....feel sorry for anyone there! Is it because they take Medicaid? Let people live at a sub level? Not okay! Beautiful Senior Living buildings around them, sad!

  • Anna Long
    ★★★★★ 8 months ago

    Amazing facility. Anyone would be lucky to have this staff watching over their loved ones. I love how engaged and responsive the staff are, and all the fun "community" events.... Respect and care are the themes our family have noticed. I would give it 6 stars if I could!

  • Christine Rewey
    ★★★★★ a month ago

    Put cameras in your loved ones room, without telling you them, then you'll see, but you're probably going to see some horrific stuff so be prepared.

About The Estates At Roseville LLC

General Information

Legal Business NameEstates At Roseville LLC
Ownership TypeFor Profit - Corporation
Changed Ownership In The Last 12 MonthsYes
First Accepted MedicareAugust 1, 1969 ()
Capacity175
Residents136
Percent Occupied78%
Program ParticipationMedicare And Medicaid
Resident And Family CouncilsBoth
In HospitalNo
Continuing Care Retirement CommunityNo
Special Focus FacilityNo
Auto Sprinkler System In Required AreasYes

Ratings for The Estates At Roseville LLC

The Estates At Roseville LLC was reviewed by Medicare to have a rating of 2 out of 5 stars.

About Medicare Ratings
Overall Rating
Health Inspections Rating
Quality Measures Rating
Staff Rating
RN Staff Rating

Overall Ratings of Minnesota Nursing Homes

Fines, Complaints, and Inspection Problems in the Past 3 Years

Note that this facility has changed ownership within the past 12 months.

Compare The Number of Problems

Types of Problems at Nursing Homes

Some issues within a nursing home are much more severe than others. Medicare evaluates each problem based on 2 scales: the number of residents affected by a problem and the severity of the potential or actual harm to residents based on the problem. We have color coded the matrix below to make it easier to pick out the more severe problems. In general, orange and red issues related to the treatment of a resident are considered substandard quality of care.

  Residents Affected
Severity of the Deficiency Few Some Many
Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety J K L
Actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy G H I
No actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy D E F
No actual harm with potential for minimal harm A B C

October 19, 2017 - 2 years ago

 Residents AffectedSeveritySource/TypeDescription
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined safe.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionEnsure residents have the right to have a choice over activities, their schedules, and health care according to their interests, assessments, and plans of care.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionConduct initial and periodic assessments of each resident's functional capacity.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment by a qualified health professional.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionAllow residents the right to participate in the planning or revision of care and treatment.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionProvide care by qualified persons according to each resident's written plan of care.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionAssist those residents who need help with eating/drinking, grooming and personal and oral hygiene.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionEnsure that each resident who enters the nursing home without a catheter is not given a catheter, unless medically necessary, and that incontinent patients receive proper services to prevent urinary tract infections and restore normal bladder functions.

Staffing Levels Per Resident per Day

Medicare determines the expected staffing time per resident per day depending on level of care the residents of The Estates At Roseville LLC require. It is important to compare the reported time to expected time for a single facility instead of comparing the amount of time per resident of two facilities. Learn why.

2hr 20min
2hr 20min
ReportedExpected
CNA
50min
35min
ReportedExpected
LPN
35min
55min
ReportedExpected
RN
3hr 45min
3hr 50min
ReportedExpected
Total Nursing

This facility also provides approximately 25min per resident per WEEK of physical therapist time.

Quality Measures for Long Stay Residents

80.7%
97.1%
97.1%
97.1%
96.7%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
94.3%
92.2%
74.5%
69.4%
95.9%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
55.2%
54.7%
65.1%
69.4%
51.1%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
16.1%
13.1%
12.4%
10.5%
12.8%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antianxiety or hypnotic medication
23.7%
13.4%
24.7%
21.9%
17.5%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to move independently worsened
20.2%
20.8%
19.8%
18.6%
13.6%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
15.5%
13.1%
13.8%
22.8%
14.4%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
13.3%
12.2%
12.8%
16.4%
7.3%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
26.3%
18.6%
13.1%
14.6%
9.0%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain
1.1%
3.7%
2.7%
2.6%
4.3%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of high risk long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
2.1%
3.9%
2.9%
1.1%
4.2%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
2.4%
2.6%
0.9%
0.9%
4.1%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
0.8%
0.7%
0.8%
0.6%
2.0%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of long-stay residents who were physically restrained

Quality Measures for Short Stay Residents

60.1%
69.7%
69.5%
59.7%
85.3%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
53.2%
69.3%
69.3%
69.3%
82.7%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents who were assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
62.2%
62.3%
60.7%
59.1%
76.1%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents who made improvements in function
26.6%
27.0%
24.2%
31.4%
20.0%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain
7.0%
4.3%
5.3%
8.5%
1.6%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
1.1%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents with pressure ulcers that are new or worsened



Some page content retrieved from Google Places