Divine Providence: Staff Worked Sick Without Screening - MN
Federal inspectors found the facility failed to follow national health guidelines when screening three staff members before they returned from illness in February, March and April. The violations affected many residents, according to the April inspection report.
The most concerning case involved trained medication aide TMA-A, who left her shift on April 2 after becoming ill. A physician diagnosed her with RSV and cleared her to return April 6. But TMA-A called in sick again that day with continued RSV symptoms.
She returned to work April 7 anyway.
Timecards showed no evidence that staff verified TMA-A was fever-free or had improved symptoms for 24 hours before returning, as required by Centers for Disease Control guidelines. RSV is highly contagious and particularly dangerous for elderly residents with compromised immune systems.
Registered nurse RN-A, serving as interim infection preventionist, told inspectors on April 15 that the facility's process only required a doctor's note for absences lasting three days or longer. Staff used no criteria to determine when employees could safely return to work using national and state guidelines.
"RN-A stated she agreed there should be a system to vet staff prior to returning based off national guidelines," inspectors wrote.
The facility's surveillance failures extended beyond the RSV case. Nurse aide NA-B called in sick five times in February — on the 8th, 9th, 13th, 23rd and 26th — and was allowed to return as soon as the next day each time. Staff later discovered NA-B was pregnant and morning sickness caused her vomiting, but managers didn't know that during her illness episodes.
RN-A admitted she was unaware that staff with gastrointestinal illness should be kept off work for 48 hours after all symptoms stop, per CDC guidelines, or 72 hours under Minnesota Department of Health standards. These protocols prevent highly contagious illnesses like norovirus from spreading through nursing homes.
Nurse aide NA-A presented another screening failure. She called in March 31 with a sore throat and runny nose. Inspectors found no documentation of whether she had a fever. NA-A returned to work April 1.
RN-A told inspectors she didn't know if NA-A had tested for COVID and wasn't cleared for potential respiratory infectious disease. CDC guidance requires symptoms to improve and staff to be fever-free for at least 24 hours before returning to work.
The administrator acknowledged the surveillance breakdown during an April 15 interview. She was unaware that staff needed screening before returning to work to show they met national and state standards, and that employees should be deemed appropriate to return without potentially exposing residents and other staff to infectious disease.
"Although she thought the DON may have screened employees prior to RTW, she agreed there was no evidence appropriate employee surveillance that had occurred," the inspection report stated.
The administrator agreed with inspectors' findings and said the facility needed to improve its surveillance and return-to-work screening process while ensuring proper documentation.
She also admitted employee surveillance wasn't being discussed in the facility's quality assurance and performance improvement meetings, a key oversight for infection control in nursing homes.
Divine Providence had a policy from January addressing staff with signs and symptoms of infectious disease. The policy stated that assessment protocols should be established so the facility could be notified if staff members had symptoms and must stay out.
The policy listed symptoms requiring staff to call in: vomiting, diarrhea, generalized body aches, cough, runny or stuffy nose, headaches, chills, fatigue, temperature and sore throat.
According to the policy, once a staff member's temperature had been normal for 24 hours without fever-reducing drugs and other symptoms were absent, the employee was allowed to return to work. For some infections, testing might be requested.
But inspectors found the policy didn't follow national standards of practice or state guidelines, depending on symptoms. The policy also failed to explain how the screening process should occur or ensure that staff taking call-ins were appropriately trained per national and state standards for vetting employees.
The policy did note that staff should be trained upon hire and annually on signs and symptoms of infectious disease.
RN-A, who had been covering infection prevention duties while the regular infection preventionist was on vacation, acknowledged the system's inadequacy. She told inspectors she was unaware of key CDC and state guidelines that protect nursing home residents from infectious disease transmission.
The inspection revealed a fundamental breakdown in one of nursing homes' most basic safety protocols. With many residents having weakened immune systems, proper employee health screening serves as a critical barrier against disease outbreaks that can prove fatal in long-term care settings.
Divine Providence's failures left dozens of vulnerable residents potentially exposed to RSV, possible COVID-19, and other infectious diseases carried by symptomatic staff members who returned to work without proper clearance.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Divine Providence Community Home from 2026-04-15 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: Official federal inspection data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Editorial process: AI-synthesized regulatory data, reviewed for accuracy by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: June 20, 2026 · Our methodology
Divine Providence Community Home in SLEEPY EYE, MN was cited for violations during a health inspection on April 15, 2026.
The violations affected many residents, according to the April inspection report.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.