No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Baptist Health & Rehab

3400 Nebraska Drive, Bismarck, ND 58503 · Non profit - Church related · 140 certified beds · (701) 223-3040 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (701) 223-3040 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citations — no harm found (F0604, F0609) — most recent Jan 20251 actual-harm citation1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)2 actual-harm citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$35,323 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $35,323 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-22)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2940 N 19th St · (701) 223-1310 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
3124 Colorado Ln Ste 400 · (701) 223-6854 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
3103 Yorktown Dr · (701) 751-7474 · Call to confirm hours
Park
4102 Nebraska Dr · (701) 222-6455 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
Koch Dr, Bismarck, ND 58503, United States · (701) 333-8866

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased10.2%19.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.9%5.8%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.4%1.6%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.7%2.6%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms10.8%4.4%6.5%worse
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.4%5.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened13.1%17.6%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication23.5%17.4%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.8%4.9%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control25.6%24.9%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table17.0%22.7%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%88.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission19.3%19.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.2%11.4%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.501.491.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.851.861.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

43.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 103 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

43.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
38.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.24U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.11hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 38.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 97 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 31% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF43.6%CMS range 34.2–52.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.9%CMS range 7.1–12.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge38.1%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge26.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge34.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified98.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting96.2%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened5.8%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.2%CMS range 4.4–10.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.051.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.73
RN hours/ resident / day
0.66
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.70
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.09
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.38
RN hoursweekends
49.3%
Total nursing turnover
36.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 140 beds and averages 133.3 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.09 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.70 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.28 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.88 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-07-01)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-16)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-07-22 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of a facility reported incident (FRI) investigation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for 1 of 1 closed resident record (Resident #1) who required respiratory support from a ventilator. Failure to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice and the physician's orders may have resulted in or contributed to Resident #1's death and placed all other ventilator-dependent residents at risk of injury or death. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective action the facility implemented immediately following discovery of the incident.The State Survey Agency (SSA) conducted an on-site investigation and determined an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation existed on 07/15/25 when a nurse (#3) delegated a non-qualified staff member (#2) to turn off Resident #1's ventilator, and the nurse (#3) failed to disconnect the resident from the ventilator and deflate the tracheostomy cuff. The survey team notified the administrator and the director of nursing…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2025-01-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of the facility reported incident, review of the facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #1) investigated for a fall. Failure to ensure staff used a mechanical lift properly and verified proper installation of attachments to the Broda chair (specialized wheelchair) resulted in a fall from the mechanical lift. Finding include: Review of the facility policy titled Floor based, Full Body Sling Lift use occurred on 01/23/25. This policy, dated 10/27/21, stated, . Transfer resident from chair to bed . Push the UP button on the hand control for the lift until there is slight tension on the sling loops. PERFORM SAFETY CHECK i. Once there is tension on the loops, double check each loop to be sure each is securely in the hook. ii. Double-check the position and stability of all straps and other equipment. v. Lift the resident about…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2025-01-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of the facility reported incident, investigation documents, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #1) investigated for falls. Failure to ensure staff use a gait belt during transfers resulted in a fracture and hospitalization. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective actions the facility implemented immediately following the incident. Findings include: The surveyor determined a deficient practice existed on 12/18/24. The facility implemented and completed corrective action on 12/20/24. Review of the facility policy titled Fall assessment and managing fall risk occurred on 01/02/25. This policy, dated 03/28/24, stated, . If a resident is on the floor after falling they should be lifted with a mechanical lift to ensure safety. Transfer/gait belt use is required during any transfer or ambulation…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-01-31 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, review of the facility reported incident investigation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an environment free of hazards for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #1) injured while consuming a hot beverage. Failure to provide the appropriate adaptive drinking aids with a mug for hot beverages contributed to Resident #1's injuries This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective action the facility implemented immediately following the incident. Findings include: The surveyors determined a deficient practice existed on 09/30/23. The facility implemented corrective action and completed all staff education on 10/06/23. Review of the facility policy titled Hot Liquid Screen occurred on 01/31/24. This policy, updated 01/26/24, stated, Policy: The purpose of the hot liquid screen is to assess the Resident's ability to safely drink hot liquids independently. Procedures: 1. Each resident will be assessed at their initial nutritional assessment, at their quarterly nutrition assessment and as…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment/services to prevent complications from a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) (a tube inserted through the abdomen that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #47) observed with a G-tube. Failure to flush the tube with water before and after medications may lead to dehydration and G-tube occlusion. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication via enteral tube occurred on 04/16/25. This policy, dated 06/26/23, stated, . Administering each medication separately and flushing between each medication is considered standard of practice . flush tube with 30 cc [cubic centimeters] of water . administer each prepared medication flushing with 5-10 cc warm water after each medication. attach syringe to feeding tube and flush it with 30 cc warm water . Review of Resident #47's medical record occurred on all days of survey and identified G-tube placement. Observation on 04/14/25 at 3:37 p.m. showed a nurse…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 3 of 6 sampled residents (Residents #49, #73 and #436) on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and observed during cares. Failure to follow EBP during tracheostomy (an opening through the neck into the windpipe) and percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube (feeding device inserted into the stomach through the abdomen) care for Resident #49, tracheostomy care (cleaning the airway tube and surrounding skin) for Resident #436, and wound care for Resident #73 has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Transmission-based precautions and enhanced barrier precautions occurred on 04/16/25. This policy, revised 05/03/24, stated, . requiring gown and glove use for enhanced barrier precautions include . feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator . Wound care: Any skin opening requiring a dressing . - Review of…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, review of the facility reported incident, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to report an incident of abuse within 24 hours to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #2) who experienced an injury. Failure to report an event of potential abuse in the required time frame does not comply with regulations established to protect residents. This citation is considered past noncompliance based on review of the corrective action the facility implemented. Findings include: The surveyor determined a deficient practice existed on 11/02/24. The facility implemented and completed corrective action on 11/08/24. Review of the facility policy titled Vulnerable Adult - ND [North Dakota] occurred on 01/23/25. This policy, dated 10/14/22, stated, . Report all alleged violations . no later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse or do not result in serious bodily injury to the North Dakota Department of Health . The facility investigation report stated, . On Friday 11/01/24, at the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to assess the use of a wheelchair seatbelt and vest straps as a possible restraint for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #2) observed with a wheelchair seat belt and vest straps . Failure to assess the wheelchair seatbelt and vest straps as possible restraints, monitor their use, and evaluate the need for continued use placed Resident #2 at risk for an unnecessary restraint and injury related to their use. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Physical assistive device assessment occurred on 03/07/24. This policy, dated 02/27/23, stated, . When appropriate, physical assistive devices will be used for resident safety, assisting with positioning or mobility and/or to help achieve and maintain a resident's highest practicable level of functioning. All assistive devices will be assessed by the interdisciplinary team to assess the risk versus benefit of the device. *Prior to initiation of the device. *A quarterly review of the assessment with the MDS [Minimum Data…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan to reflect the current status for 3 of 28 sampled residents (Resident #2, #63, and #99). Failure to review and revise the care plan limited staff's ability to communicate needs and ensure continuity of care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care plan and baseline care plan occurred on 03/07/24. This policy, revised 10/14/22, stated, . The resident care plan is constantly changing. It is to be updated routinely in the electronic record to reflect resident's current condition. Care plans are updated with MDS [Minimum Data Set] /Care conference schedule and as needed to assure that they are an accurate reflection of the resident and their care needs. - Review of Resident #2's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The current care plan stated, Impaired physical mobility: potential for falls r/t [related to] impaired mobility . W/C [wheelchair] for locomotion. Observations on 03/04/24 at 4:28 p.m. and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, review of professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of nursing practice for 1 of 1 supplemental resident (Resident #135) observed during medication administration. Failure of staff to ensure residents swallowed medications, reported behaviors during medication administration, and re-administered unswallowed or refused medications may lead to adverse health conditions. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication administration occurred on 03/07/24. This policy, revised 07/18/19, stated, . Medications will be administered by licensed nurses or trained medication aides . under the supervision of a licensed nurse. Review of Kozier & Erb's Fundamentals of Nursing: Concepts, Process, and Practice, 11th ed., Pearson Education, Inc., Massachusetts, page 837, stated, . Administering Medications Safely . Some older people may be confused by the prescription of several medications and may passively accept their medications from nurses but not swallow…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolated
    Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and family interview, the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of meaningful activities designed to meet the interests and physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #60) dependent on staff for activities. Failure to provide meaningful activities for residents limited Resident #60's ability to reach her highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: During an interview on 03/05/24 at 10:50 a.m., a family member (A) stated, [Resident #60] sits out by the nurses' station. They [residents] are always sitting in the lounge. They are lined up and not stimulated. Not one aide will be sitting there, engaging them. I can go up any time of the day, but there is no one interacting with them. Review of the facility policy titled One to One Therapeutic Activity Programs occurred on 03/07/24. This policy, revised 05/01/22, stated, . One to One Activity programs will…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, review of professional reference, review of facility policy, and family interview, the facility failed to offer fluids to 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #60) who were observed during cares and required staff assistance for fluid intake. Failure to provide assistance with fluid intake may result in dehydration, constipation, and urinary tract infections (UTIs). Findings include: During an interview on 03/05/24 at 10:50 a.m., following cares, a family member (A) indicated staff often fail to offer liquids, stating, Here [on the bedside table] sits her [Resident #60's] water. She's had three UTIs in the last few months. Review of the facility policy titled Hydration occurred on 03/07/24. This policy, dated 04/13/23, stated, . Each resident will receive and the facility will provide fluids, including water and other liquids consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain proper hydration . CNA [certified nurse aide] staff will provide and encourage intake of fluids on a daily and routine basis as part of daily care.…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, policy and procedure review, professional reference review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the care and services consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#79 and #99) on hemodialysis with an arterial-venous fistula (vascular access for hemodialysis). Failure to assess the hemodialysis vascular access site (fistula) may result in complications and adverse effects, such as clotting and possible loss of the access site. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dialysis occurred on 03/05/24. This policy, dated 11/06/23, stated, Responsibility: Licensed Nurse 1. Residents who require dialysis will receive this service consistent with professional standards of practice . 2. Facility will provide ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and will monitor for complications before and after each dialysis treatment received at a certified dialysis facility. 4. The coordinated, person-centered care plan will include: . f. Adverse responses/complications to dialysis and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control for 3 of 10 sampled residents (#60, #124, and #131) observed during cares. Failure to follow infection control standards during perineal cares and with transmission-based precautions (TBP) has the potential to transmit infections to residents, staff, and visitors. Findings include: TRANSMISSION BASED PRECAUTIONS Review of the facility policy titled COVID -19 protocol occurred on 03/05/24. This policy, dated 09/16/20, stated, . Employees providing care for COVID-19 positive residents will wear N-95 masks, gown, gloves and eye protection . Review of Resident #131's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The progress notes identified the following: * 03/01/2024 at 4:22 p.m., . [resident] is being admitted to the hospital. tested Covid + [positive] . * 03/03/2024 at 6:53 p.m., Resident returned from the hospital. Resident was diagnoses [sic] with COVID on 3/01/24. Resident is on Droplet and contact isolation . Observations showed the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$35,323 in federal fines across 3 penalties.

  • $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-07-22
  • $11,190 — penalty dated 2025-01-23
  • $6,788 — penalty dated 2025-01-02

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CASSIA — 16 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 54.4-0.4 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.7+0.3 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 54.8-0.8 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 54.3-1.3 vs chain
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.4★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
ELIM CARE INCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 11/26/2009
GROSZ, GERALDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/11/2013
GRUBB, DARRELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/10/2013
GRUPP, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/09/2009
JUST, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/23/2020
MALARD, MAYSILIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/29/2011
SOTEBEER, DENNISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2016
TANGEDAHL, GUYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2007
WRIGHT, BRIANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/23/2020
DAHL, ROBERTIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/26/2009
KERN, MATTHEWIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/28/2019
YOUNGQUIST, KATHRYNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/01/2009
CASSIA SERVICESOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2020
BERG, DEANNAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2019

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$21.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+5.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.2M
Related-party expense11% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 47%Medicare 13%Other / private 41%

This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$403per resident / day
operating cost
$12,262per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$426per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in ND

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Dakota Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in North Dakota
$11,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,304/mo
Nursing home (private)
$4,729/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 355058. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-01, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next