Itasca County Nursing Home

Pros

• The Memory Care Unit staff were kind, attentive, creative, and wonderful with a family member.
• The staff treat residents with respect and are always willing to help.
• All the staff are nice and are always willing to help.
• The facility was nice and the physical therapy (PT) was good.

Cons

• The PT was incompetent and unprofessional, spending time complaining about cooperation rather than helping with rehabilitation.
• The staff claimed the patient wasn't making progress to Medicare, a claim the reviewer says was untrue.
• There were large unexplained bruises on the patient's back.
• The OT was not observed providing therapy and may not have been performing their duties.
• The facility mistreated and neglected residents, with inconsistent care and staff described as heinous.
• There were broken bones and unexplained bruises, with conflicting stories from staff when questioned.
• The staff were slow to respond to calls for help and did not acknowledge questions at the desk.
• Residents were deprived of basic human rights, and care and nourishment were not properly provided.
• The facility was described as short-staffed, with medication errors and cold food.
• Transfer paperwork omitted critical care details, and discharge with physical therapy orders was not completed.
• A family member was neglected, leading to severe weight loss, dehydration, and possible mini-strokes; negligence was alleged.
• The reviewer would not recommend the facility to others.

Review

The collection of experiences shared about this facility paints a complex and troubling picture. On one hand, there are mentions of individual nurses and aides who delivered excellent care, warmth, and attentiveness. But these positives are heavily outweighed by other accounts that describe serious shortcomings in rehabilitation, communication, and overall patient safety. The overarching theme across many of the stories is a sense that the system - particularly in the rehab and care coordination aspects - was inflexible, slow to respond, and sometimes dismissive of the needs and realities faced by very ill loved ones.

Several reviewers place the heaviest weight on the rehabilitation portion of the stay. In one account, the physical therapy team is portrayed as incompetent and obstructive: the therapists spent their time complaining that the patient's girlfriend wasn't cooperating and weren't patient with the patient's fragile condition. The reviewer insisted that the patient was very sick and that rehab professionals should meet her where she was, rather than enforcing rigid expectations or a one-size-fits-all approach. There is a strong implication that the rehab team used policies and procedures as a shield rather than as a guide, and that this approach failed to acknowledge the patient's medical reality or her pace of recovery. The consequences, according to the reviewer, included the facility reporting to Medicare that there was no progress and, as a result, Medicare coverage did not continue - which culminated in the patient returning home for a single day before a hospitalization that lasted ten days and ultimately led to hospice care. The reviewer connects this trajectory to a broader belief that the rehab staff did not truly try to help and did not adapt to the patient's needs.

The experience around occupational therapy echoes the frustration. One reviewer heard that occupational therapy was present, but they never actually saw or met the OT, so they conclude that the OT was "not doing their job." This sentiment feeds into a larger impression of inconsistent or invisible therapy services, where the presence of therapy is not guaranteed in a way that a family member can observe, verify, or rely upon. The absence of direct interaction with therapists is framed as indicative of a broader pattern of disengagement from proactive patient rehabilitation and family involvement.

Communication, follow-through, and accountability emerge as persistent weak points across several accounts. A recurring thread is the sense that staff members did not communicate clearly or consistently with families. One reviewer described a lack of follow-up and an inability to reach key people, noting that they received multiple, conflicting phone numbers and even dead-end fax numbers. The social worker, the nurse manager, and other leadership figures are criticized for inconsistent care and for failing to bridge gaps between the facility, the patient's family, and outside providers. In some cases, staff reportedly told family members that "this conversation is over" when questions were raised, and questions posed to the desk often went unanswered or met with indifference. The impression is of a care culture where questions are discouraged and family involvement is not welcomed or respected.

There are stark concerns about safety and the basic rights of residents. A number of reviewers recounted large, unexplained bruises on a resident's back and even mentions of broken bones. Others described inconsistent or contradictory versions of what happened, and some reports claim that staff were slow to respond to calls for help. A particularly alarming element is the suggestion that, in some cases, problems were not adequately investigated or addressed, and that accountability was limited. One family went so far as to involve the Ombudsman, which led to a hospital admission and a sequence of tests for a loved one who had deteriorated significantly due to dehydration and a possible two mini-strokes. These narratives collectively suggest a pattern in which patient safety incidents were met with defensive explanations and delayed or inadequate responses, rather than transparent investigation and prompt corrective action.

Against the many negative stories, there are also isolated notes of positive care. Several reviewers claim that "the staff treats the residents with respect and are always willing to help," and a reader who spoke about the memory care unit highlighted kind, attentive, and creative staff who have been wonderful with family members. This suggests that there is a faction of caregivers within the facility who are capable, compassionate, and dedicated to their residents' well-being. It also hints that differences in experience may be linked to unit, shift, or specific personnel, rather than a single, uniform culture across the entire facility. Even within a sea of complaints, these voices emphasize that good care is possible and that some staff members truly go above and beyond.

Other reviews point to systemic issues tied to staffing and resource constraints. Several comments use blunt language about overall management and organizational culture: short staffing, back-to-back shifts, medication errors, and cold or poorly prepared food. Some reviews frame the facility as a place where "med errors" occurred and where follow-up was notoriously unreliable. A recurring image is of a facility that treats residents more like a routine number or a problem to be moved through rather than as individual people with unique medical histories and emotional needs. In particular, there are lamentations about miscommunication in discharge planning, including situations where important medical information or care needs were omitted in transitions to other facilities or to home health care, leaving families to manage gaps reactively rather than proactively.

Taken together, the testimonies describe a facility where the quality of care varies dramatically by department and individual staff member. There are heartfelt calls for accountability, better communication, and more attentive, patient-centered rehab. There are also brief but meaningful glimpses of compassionate care that demonstrate what is possible when providers listen to families and prioritize the complexity of each patient's condition. The conversations span a wide spectrum - from gratitude for certain caregivers' kindness to urgent calls for systemic changes to protect residents' health and dignity. In the end, these stories underscore the critical need for reliable, well-coordinated care, clear lines of responsibility, and responsive advocacy when loved ones are at their most vulnerable.

Places of Worship

• Grand Rapids Evangelical Free Church (0.9 miles)
• St Andrew's Lutheran Church (1.2 miles)
• First Church of God (1.5 miles)
• Northland Bible Baptist Church (1.7 miles)
• Grace Bible Chapel (1.7 miles)
• General Conference Of Seventh-Day Adventists (1.8 miles)
• Christ Episcopal Church (1.8 miles)

Restaurants

• Forest Lake Restaurant (1.1 miles)
• Grand Buffet Chinese (1.7 miles)
• New China Restaurant (1.9 miles)
• Unwined Up North (1.9 miles)
• Burger King (2 miles)
• Fuji (2 miles)
• El Potro Mexican Restaurant (2.2 miles)

Parks

• Lost Creek Park (1.5 miles)
• Grussendorf Park (1.8 miles)
• Riverview Park (2.4 miles)
• Crystal Springs Park (5.6 miles)
• Longyear Park (6.9 miles)
• Cotton Park (7.3 miles)
• Frog Central (10.2 miles)

Pharmacies

• Super One Foods (1.5 miles)
• Medicine Shoppe Pharmacy (1.9 miles)
• Walgreens (2.5 miles)
• Thrifty White Drug (3.1 miles)
• Target Pharmacy (3.2 miles)
• Super One Foods (3.3 miles)
• Ott Drug Store (12.2 miles)

Hospitals

• Grand Itasca Clinic and Hospital (1.7 miles)
• Duluth Clinic Deer River (12.6 miles)

Physicians

• Eye Fashions Optical Shoppe (1.9 miles)
• Lakewood Surgery Center (2 miles)
• Essentia Health-Grand Rapids Clinic (2 miles)
• Spenningsby, James Dr-Bonner Eye Clinic (2 miles)
• Itasca Surgical Clinic (2 miles)
• Northern Pines Orthopaedic Clinic PA (2.4 miles)
• Hise Leo Dr & Mary (2.4 miles)

Cafes

• Caribou Coffee (3.1 miles)
• Higher Grounds Coffee Shop (12.2 miles)