Good Samaritan Society Augusta Place A Prospera Co
301 Lorrain Drive, Bismarck, ND 58503 · Non profit - Corporation · 48 certified beds · (701) 255-1084 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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 (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (22% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors recorded 2 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 $16,036 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-01)
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 improved from 3 to 5 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 32.2% | 19.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.4% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.9% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.5% | 4.4% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 8.7% | 5.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.4% | 17.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.6% | 17.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 98.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 4.9% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.6% | 24.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.7% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 63.6% | 88.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.0% | 19.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.3% | 11.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.65 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.61 | 1.86 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
35.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 36 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 22 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 0.22 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 26% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 35.6%CMS range 22.1–48.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 5.7–15.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 50.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 36.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 45.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 96.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 discharge | not 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 48 beds and averages 47.0 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 1 bed 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 4.43 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.06 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.75 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 3.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.64 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.21 to 0.69 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% is below 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
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.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-08-01 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from significant medication errors for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #1) receiving insulin. Failure to administer insulin according to a physician's order may have contributed to Resident #1's hyperglycemia (elevated blood sugar level) and hospitalization. This citation is considered past noncompliance based on review of the corrective action the facility implemented immediately following the incident. Findings include: The surveyor determined a deficient practice existed on 07/30/24. The facility implemented corrective action on 07/30/24 and completed staff education and began audits on 07/31/24. Review of the facility policy titled Medication: Administration Including Scheduling and Medication Aides occurred on 08/01/24. This policy, dated 05/21/24, stated, . Medications are administered to the resident according to the 'Six…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, record review, review of the facility reported incident investigation, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an environment free of hazards for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #1) injured while consuming a hot beverage. Failure to place the hot beverage lid securely to the cup resulted in an injury to Resident #1. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective action the facility implemented immediately following the incident. Findings include: Interviews with Resident #1 occurred on the morning of 05/09/24. The resident stated she likes the lid of her hot beverages loosened to allow them to cool and staff assist her with the hot beverages. She stated, on the day of the burn, staff placed the hot beverage in front of her with the lid loosened and she forgot to wait for assistance and the hot liquid spilled onto her chest. Random observations on 05/09/24 showed secured likds on hot beverages. Review of Resident #1's medical record occurred on 05/09/24. The nurse's progress notes identified 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of manufacturer's instructions and staff interview, the facility failed to sanitize surfaces in 1 of 1 facility kitchen. Failure to ensure the concentration of quaternary (quat) sanitizing solution is within manufacturer's guidelines may result in an incorrect solution concentration. Inadequate sanitization of the kitchen surfaces places residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings include: Review of the manufacturer's instructions for Ecolab's Oasis 146 Multi-Quat Sanitizer occurred on 01/29/25. This information identified a concentration of 150- 400 ppm (parts per million) for effective sanitizing. Observation during the initial kitchen tour on 01/27/25 at 10 a.m., showed a dietary staff member (#11) wiped a food-prep counter in the kitchen with a cloth from a bucket of solution. The dietary staff (#10) identified the solution in the bucket as the quat disinfecting solution she obtained from the main kitchen earlier that morning. Upon request, the dietary staff member (#10) tested the solution twice using expired Hydrion QT 40 test strips. 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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 5 of 13 sampled residents (Resident #20, #30, #36, #38 and #200) and one supplemental resident (Resident #2) observed during cares and medication pass. Failure to practice infection control standards related to enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), droplet precautions, and hand hygiene, has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene occurred on 01/28/25. This policy, revised on 03/29/22, stated, . Policy: . All employees in patient cares areas . will adhere to . Hand Hygiene . 3 After bodily Fluid/Glove Removal . according to standard precautions . 2. Hand hygiene should be performed after glove removal . Procedure: HCW [Health Care Workers] will use waterless alcohol-based hand sanitizer or soap and water to clean their hands: . After removing gloves regardless of task completed . After contact with a patient's excretions . When moving from contaminated…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to review and revise care plans to reflect the residents' current status for 2 of 13 sampled residents (Resident #33 and #39). Failure to update care plans limited the staffs' ability to communicate needs and ensure continuity of care. Findings include: - Review of Resident #33's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A physician's order, dated 07/16/24, stated, Hiprex [antibiotic/antibacterial medication] Oral Tablet 1 GM [gram] . Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for prevent uti [urinary tract infection]. The current care plan stated, . Monitor/document for s/s [sign/symptoms of] UTI . The facility failed to update Resident #33 care plan to include a medication to prevent UTIs. - Review of Resident #39's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A physician's order, dated 09/23/24, stated, Hiprex Oral Tablet 1 GM . Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for Recurrent [sic] UTIs. The current care plan stated, . Monitor/document for s/s UTI . The facility failed to update Resident #39's care plan to…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure 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, review of facility policy, review of manufacturer's instructions, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #33) observed for insulin preparation and administration. Failure to properly prime an insulin pen and administer insulin correctly may result in residents receiving an inaccurate dose of insulin. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Insulin Administration, Insulin Pens, Insulin Pumps occurred on 01/30/25. This policy, revised 09/05/24, stated, . Insulin Pen. Turn the dosage knob to '2' units to prime the pen. 10.) Holding the pen with the needle pointing upwards, press the button until at least a drop of insulin appears. 11.) Dial in the ordered dose of units. Inject the dose into the chosen site. Be sure to wait 6 seconds to ensure that the full dose has been delivered. Review of manufacturer's Instructions For Use of Lantus occurred on 01/30/25 and stated, . Injecting your Lantus Dose: Place your thumb on the injection button. Then press all the way in 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-01-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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, review of facility policy, review of food temperature logs, review of resident council meeting minutes, and resident, family, and staff interviews, the facility failed to serve hot foods at palatable temperatures on 3 of 3 units (Pine Ride, [NAME] Hills, and Eagle Bend). Failure to serve foods at a temperature acceptable to residents may result in decreased intake, weight loss, and inadequate nutrition. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Food Temperature Monitoring - Food and Nutrition Services occurred on 01/18/24. This policy, revised 12/21/23, stated, . Proper holding temperature - Temperature required for food safety ( . hot food > [greater than] 135 degrees Fahrenheit) . Proper serving temperature - A temperature that is . appetizing to the resident . Food is cooked, reheated or cooled to ensure proper holding temperatures . Food temperatures are taken and recorded before each meal service. Periodically, temperatures are taken at other times during or at the end 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-18 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THIS IS A REPEAT DEFICIENCY FROM THE SURVEY COMPLETED ON 01/19/23 Based on record review, review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual (Version 1.18.11), and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 2 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #29 and #44) and one supplemental resident (Resident #12). Failure to accurately complete the MDS does not allow each resident's assessment to reflect their current status/needs and may affect the accurate development of a comprehensive care plan and the care provided to the residents. Findings include: SECTION E: BEHAVIORS The Long-Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, revised October 2023, page E-1, stated, Intent: The items in this section identify behavioral symptoms in the last seven days that may cause distress to the resident, or may be distressing or disruptive to facility residents, staff members or the care environment. These behaviors may place the resident at risk for…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-18 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of the North Dakota Provider Manual Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) and Level of Care Screening Procedures for Long Term Care Services, and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a status change assessment for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #29) reviewed for PASARR. Failure to complete a change in status assessment with a newly diagnosed mental illness may result in the delivery of care and services inconsistent with the resident's needs. Findings include: The North Dakota PASARR Provider Manual, revised 12/29/20, page 13 states, . Change in Status Process . Whenever the following events occur, nursing facility staff must contact Maximus to update the Level I screen for determination of whether a first time or updated Level II evaluation must be performed. These situations suggest that a significant change in status has occurred: . If an individual with MI, ID, and/or RC (mental illness, intellectual disability, and conditions related to intellectual disability [referred to in regulatory language as related conditions…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, record review, review of manufacturer's instructions, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices necessary to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #9) observed during a transfer utilizing a sit-to-stand mechanical lift transfer. Failure to ensure proper use of a stand lift during transfers placed the resident at risk for accidents and injury. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Safe Resident Handling, dated January 2023, stated, . enables caregivers to safely support residents who require partial or total assistance to ambulate, transfer and reposition . mobility equipment . refers to sit to stand lifts . slings a resident uses with mobility tasks . caregivers with perform am TIME OUT safety stop while the resident is in a sling or harness and still over the surface . to ensure all straps are secure before moving away from the surface . this is to be completed once the straps are taut, but before the resident leaves the surface . Review of Resident #9's medical record…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-18 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's medication regimen remained free of unnecessary medications for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #44) reviewed for antipsychotic medications. Failure to consistently monitor residents while on the medication may result in the residents experiencing adverse consequences related to the antipsychotic medication. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Tardive Dyskinesia occurred on 01/18/24. This policy, reviewed 02/07/23, stated, . Tardive Dyskinesia (TD) is an involuntary movement disorder that may appear after use of neuroleptic medications [antipsychotics]. Upon initiation of antipsychotic medication therapy, a baseline assessment shall be completed . Positive screenings will be . considered in the continuation of drug therapy . The User-Defined Assessment (UDA) utilized by the facility for Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessments, stated, . Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale . Required at least every six months when resident is…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 ensure appropriate labeling of medications for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #45) observed during medication administration. Failure to ensure medication cards contain the correct administration information may result in medication errors and adverse drug effects. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medications: Acquisition Receiving Dispensing and Storage occurred on 01/18/24. This policy, revised 02/02/23, stated, . Licensed nursing employees are responsible for ordering from pharmacy . and checking all new orders of medications from the physician's orders . The medication orders/changes are communicated to the pharmacy. All medications . are packaged in accordance with . state pharmacy rules. Observation on 01/17/24 at 9:46 a.m. showed a nurse (#5) administered Resident #45's medications. The pharmacy labels on the cards identified Lorazepam 0.5 mg [milligrams] 1 tablet BID [two times a day] and every 6 hours PRN [as needed] and Oxycodone 5 mg 1 tablet BID…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain sanitary food service in 1 of 3 kitchenettes (Eagle Bend). Failure to ensure safe transportation of foods to resident rooms and ensure utilization of sanitary food service equipment has the potential to result in contamination of food and spread illness to resident, staff, and visitors. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Safe Meal Service occurred on 01/18/24. This policy, reviewed 01/11/23, stated, . Meals served in resident's rooms . need to be covered during transportation. Upon completion of the meal by the resident in their room, nursing will document the necessary detail of food consumption before placing the used tray into the enclosed 'dirty' cart in the kitchenette. The Nutrition and Food Services employees will retrieve the tray to bring back to the dish room for processing. Observation on 01/18/24 at 8:47 a.m. showed a certified nurse aide (CNA) (#9) transported a meal tray to Resident #8's room. The tray contained three uncovered cups of liquids. 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.
“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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
$16,036 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-08-01
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-05-09
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 GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY — 92 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 91 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 91; lowest-rated first.
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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SANFORD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2019 |
| THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2019 |
| BROWN, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| DYKHOUSE, DANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| ENGBRECHT, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GASSEN, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GULSVIG, NEIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| HERSETH SANDLIN, STEPHANIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| LUNDEEN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| MCCAUSLAND, MAUREEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MOLBERT, LAURIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| NORTH, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| SCHIEFFER, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SHULKIN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| TEIKEN, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| WENZEL, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FLUIT, JOEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2022 |
| MIDDLETON, AIMEE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/27/2022 |
| OLSON, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2024 |
| SCHEMA, NATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| AL RABADI, ISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| MORRISON, TONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| SANDGREN, DEEANDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/16/2023 |
| TROY, PETER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/08/2022 |
| DTN STAFFING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2024 |
| FOCUSONE SOLUTIONS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/04/2024 |
| GRAPE TREE MEDICAL STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/13/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 56 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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 2024. 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
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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
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.
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 355125. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-11, 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.