Search for Skilled Nursing by ZIP Code:  :

Cerenity Residence On Humboldt

  1. Skilled Nursing Home Facilities
  2. Minnesota
  3. St Paul 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 2.6 / 5.0 ★★★★★

  • Thatsmysh!t !
    ★★★★★ 7 months ago

    This place is the bottom of the earth to me. My mom was brought here upon recommendation. Reading reviews I was skeptical. She stayed one month in the facility and conditions are bleak at best. I discussed billing and private pay. I'm sure as most know in these situations sometimes you need court orders to obtain info on loved ones if they haven't properly planned. After it's all said and done I got one letter to my address stating she was being sued after 3 months? I would highly recommended White Pines Senior care of Mendoza heights. Great people! I would also like to point out if you do any research these 5 star reviews of Cerenity come from employees!? nothing like rooting your own horn!

  • Pamela Rattei
    ★★★★★ 10 months ago

    Another thing I'd like to add is that the Social Worker/Management is very poor. I kept asking if I was covered by insurance. If I wasn't I was leaving. They assured me I was fine and kept changing my discharge date. Then I get a bill in the mail for 14,500.00!? Who has $14,500.00 at their disposal? Really?!

  • Brooke Burgesen
    ★★★★★ 6 months ago

    Horrible place for your loved ones. They don't care at all. So much staff turnover it's ridiculous. If I could give a zero I would.

  • Beckie Jaros
    ★★★★★ 8 months ago

    Shady acres. Gets ur person a place to exist. Overworked over burdened nursing staff, uncaring house keeping staff that carelessly break your loved ones things, and management that doesn't care.

  • Pam Watkins
    ★★★★★ a year ago

    This is one out of 3 TCU' s I was at in two years in the Twin cities metro area. The OT and PT were good. The rooms were cleaned/mopped daily. The food in here was terrible! I mean Campbell's soup, really?? I couldn't eat a lot of the menu items as they were fatty or greasy!! One night we had sweet and sour pork that looked like Dog food from a can!! It really makes me sad that these are potentially the places others and I will end up in some day....

About Cerenity Residence On Humboldt

General Information

Legal Business NameLegal Business Name Not Available
Ownership TypeNon Profit - Corporation
Changed Ownership In The Last 12 MonthsNo
First Accepted MedicareSeptember 30, 1987 (32 years)
Capacity30
Residents23
Percent Occupied77%
Program ParticipationMedicare
Resident And Family CouncilsBoth
In HospitalNo
Continuing Care Retirement CommunityNo
Special Focus FacilityNo
Auto Sprinkler System In Required AreasYes

Ratings for Cerenity Residence On Humboldt

Cerenity Residence On Humboldt 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

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

March 23, 2017 - 2 years ago

 Residents AffectedSeveritySource/TypeDescription
ESomePotential for HarmHealth InspectionMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
ESomePotential for HarmHealth InspectionStore, cook, and serve food in a safe and clean way.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionProvide necessary care and services to maintain or improve the highest well being of each resident .
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionAllow residents the right to participate in the planning or revision of care and treatment.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionProvide housekeeping and maintenance services.

Staffing Levels Per Resident per Day

Medicare determines the expected staffing time per resident per day depending on level of care the residents of Cerenity Residence On Humboldt 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 50min
2hr 30min
ReportedExpected
CNA
15min
55min
ReportedExpected
LPN
3hr 5min
1hr 50min
ReportedExpected
RN
6hr 5min
5hr 15min
ReportedExpected
Total Nursing

This facility also provides approximately 3hr 30min per resident per WEEK of physical therapist time.

Quality Measures for Long Stay Residents

-
-
-
-
96.7%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
-
-
-
-
95.9%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
-
-
-
-
51.1%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
-
-
-
-
12.8%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antianxiety or hypnotic medication
-
-
-
-
17.5%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to move independently worsened
-
-
-
-
13.6%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
-
-
-
-
14.4%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
-
-
-
-
7.3%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
-
-
-
-
4.3%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of high risk long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
-
-
-
-
9.0%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain
-
-
-
-
4.2%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
-
-
-
-
3.3%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
-
-
-
-
4.1%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
-
-
-
-
2.0%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder
-
-
-
-
0.2%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
* The data for this facility for some quarters is unavailable.
Percentage of long-stay residents who were physically restrained

Quality Measures for Short Stay Residents

68.8%
57.7%
57.0%
52.5%
85.3%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
84.0%
54.5%
54.5%
54.5%
82.7%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents who were assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
55.4%
64.2%
60.7%
50.5%
76.1%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents who made improvements in function
31.2%
30.5%
29.1%
31.4%
20.0%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain
0.0%
0.7%
0.7%
2.4%
1.6%
Q4 2016Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017MN
Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
0.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.4%
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