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

Valley Senior Living On Columbia

2900 14th Ave S, Grand Forks, ND 58201 · Non profit - Church related · 196 certified beds · (701) 787-7900 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (701) 787-7900 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 20251 actual-harm citation1 actual-harm citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$20,112 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2025
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding 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 $20,112 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-19)
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score

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 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1380 S Columbia Rd · (701) 795-2000 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1380 S Columbia Rd · (701) 795-2020 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1375 S Columbia Rd · (701) 885-2876 · Call to confirm hours
Park
3211 17th Ave S · (701) 746-2782 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 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 held steady at 4 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 rating4★
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 increased18.1%19.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.6%5.8%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.0%1.6%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.0%2.6%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.8%4.4%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.8%0.2%0.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury6.6%5.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened18.6%17.6%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.5%17.4%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.2%4.9%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.8%24.9%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table17.4%22.7%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.3%1.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%88.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission18.0%19.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.3%11.4%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.931.491.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.881.861.80better

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.

44.1% 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 336 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

44.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
47.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.12U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.05hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 47.4% 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 192 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 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 8% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 SNF44.1%CMS range 39.0–49.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.7%CMS range 7.2–10.710.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge47.4%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 discharge34.4%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 discharge38.0%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 identified100.0%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 setting100.0%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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.2%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 worsened2.9%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 hospitalization5.5%CMS range 3.7–8.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.781.02Oct 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

1.30
RN hours/ resident / day
0.62
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.39
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.32
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.70
RN hoursweekends
32.6%
Total nursing turnover
11.9%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 196 beds and averages 187.1 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 9 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 5.32 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.30 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.39 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 4.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.76 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.54 to 0.70 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-06-19)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2024-05-16)

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.

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

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2025-06-19 · 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 (FRI) investigation, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to properly utilize assistive devices necessary to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #150) who fell during a staff assisted transfer. Failure to utilize the gait belt resulted in Resident #150's fall/fracture and placed all residents transferred with a gait belt at risk for injury. 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 02/26/25. The facility implemented corrective action immediately, completed corrective action on 03/03/25, and continues with staff education and monitoring. Review of the facility policy titled Gait Belt Use occurred on 06/19/25. This policy, revised August 2023, stated, . Use an underhand grasp to hold on to the gait belt . Review of Resident #150's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included right femur…

    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 before2024-05-16 · 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 2. Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision necessary to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #165) who required one to one supervision with meals. Failure to stay with the resident while eating as care planned places the resident at risk for choking. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plan, Comprehensive Interdisciplinary occurred on 05/16/24. This policy, dated March 2017, stated, . The services provided or arranged by the facility will meet professional standards of quality, be provided by qualified persons, and be culturally-competent and trauma-informed. Review of Resident #165's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The current care plan stated, . EATING: I am to eat all my meals out of bed in the upright position. Encourage me to go to the family room. I require 1:1 assist for meals d/t [due to] hx [history of] coughing with meals. I am at increased nutrition…

    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 · D2025-11-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    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 -review of a facility reported incident (FRI), record review, review of facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from abuse for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #2) who experienced unwanted sexual contact from another resident (Resident #1). Failure to protect residents from sexual abuse places all residents at risk for psychosocial harm and mental and emotional distress. Findings include:The surveyors determined a deficient practice existed on 08/19/25. the facility implemented and completed corrective action on 08/19/25.Review of the facility policy titled Valley Senior Living Personnel Policy and Procedure 207.7 occurred on 11/26/25. This policy, dated October 2024, stated, . Every resident has the right to be free from abuse .Review of the FRI identified on 08/19/25 at 8;30 a.m., . Residents [#1 and #2] were self mobilizing their wheelchairs after breakfast down the hallway. [Resident #1] wheeled next to [Resident #2], reached out 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-19 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure 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 Based on record review, review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual (Version 1.19.1), and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Resident #36). 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: The Long-Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, revised October 2024, page A-32, stated, . Coding Instructions. Code A, Serious mental illness: if resident has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness . Review of Resident #36's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The record included diagnoses of bipolar disorder, Tourette's disorder, and autistic disorder. A comprehensive MDS, dated [DATE], showed the facility failed to code Section A1500 for a serious mental illness. During an…

    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 · Dcited before2025-06-19 · 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, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 3 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #30, #153, and #275) observed during cares/wound care. Failure to practice infection control standards related to enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), perineal care, catheter cares, dressing changes, and hand hygiene, has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dressings: Dry and Moist-to-Dry occurred on 06/18/25. This policy, dated April 2022, stated, . Apply antiseptic ointment (if ordered) with sterile cotton-tipped swab or gauze . Dispose of gloves and perform hand hygiene. Review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions occurred on 06/19/25. This policy, dated April 2025, stated, . EBPs apply when: A resident . has a wound. Indwelling medical devices include . urinary catheters . EBPs employ targeted gown and glove use…

    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 · D2024-05-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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 policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 2 of 5 sampled residents on oxygen (Resident #32 and #47). Failure to develop a comprehensive care plan limited staffs' ability to communicate needs and ensure the continuity of care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plan, Comprehensive Interdisciplinary occurred on 05/16/24. This policy, dated 03/2017, stated, . The comprehensive care plan must describe the following: 1. Services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. - Review of Resident #32's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, and palliative care. Physician's orders stated the following: . O2 [oxygen] PRN [as needed] 1.5 Liters per nasal cannula for comfort as needed and every day shift daily. O2 sat [saturation]…

    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 · D2024-05-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide care and services to prevent the development of pressure ulcers for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident #165) with prevalon boots (used for pressure relief) as ordered by the provider. Failure to apply the pressure relief boots as ordered may result in the development/worsening of pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Standards of Care occurred on 05/16/24. This policy, dated 05/01/24, stated, . Additional pressure relief measures will be maintained for residents who are considered at risk for pressure injury. Review of Resident #165's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included a stage three pressure ulcer on the right ankle. The current care plan stated, I have a potential impairment to skin integrity r/t [related to] Impaired [sic] mobility . I need assistance to apply bilateral prevalon boots, on while in bed. A provider's order, dated 11/13/23, stated, Prevalon boot to BLE [bilateral lower extremities] for potential for high…

    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 · D2024-05-16 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    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 staff interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate toileting for 1 of 29 sampled residents (Resident #98) who required staff assistance with toileting. Failure to provide toileting may result in a loss of dignity and placed residents at risk for skin breakdown, poor grooming/hygiene, decreased self-esteem, urinary tract infections, and risk for fall and/or injuries. Findings include: Review of Resident #98's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included skin breakdown. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified frequently incontinent of urine, extensive assist of two for toileting, and at risk for pressure ulcers. The current care plan stated, . at risk for alterations to skin integrity . TOILET USE: I need assist of 2 with total lift . I am incontinent of bowel and bladder . * Observation on 05/13/24 at 4:09 p.m. showed Resident #98 sitting in the wheelchair in her room with urine on the floor under the wheelchair. *…

    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 · D2024-05-16 · tag F0849 — isolated
    Arrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' records contained the hospice election form for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #79) receiving hospice services. Failure to obtain this document limits staff's ability to ensure coordination of care between the facility and the hospice. Findings include: Review of Resident #79's medical record occurred on all days of survey and identified Resident #79 elected Hospice services on 04/29/24. The medical record lacked the hospice election form. During an interview on 05/15/24 at 5:07 p.m., an administrative nurse (#1) confirmed the medical record for Resident #79 lacked the hospice election form.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-16 · 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

    Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control for (2 of 21) sampled residents (Resident #49, and #154) and one supplemental resident (Resident #56) observed during personal cares. Failure to follow infection control standards related to hand hygiene and emptying of a urinary bag has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility and could transmit those infections to residents, staff, and visitors. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene occurred on 05/15/24. This policy, revised in May 2023, stated, . all personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures . 2. Before and after direct contact with residents. Review of the facility skills validation titled Emptying Urinary Drainage Bag occurred in 05/15/24. This skills validation, revised on February 2022, stated, . 8. Place graduate on paper towel. 9. Do not let spout or clamp touch the graduate. 11. Place graduate on a paper towel on a flat surface. - Observation on 05/13/24 at 2:09…

    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 · D2023-06-08 · 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, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for removal of a foley catheter for 1 of 7 sampled residents with a catheter (Resident #147). Failure to follow physician orders for the removal of the foley catheter and to attempt voiding trials may result in an increased risk of catheter associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) and decreased quality of life. Findings Include: The facility failed to provide a copy of their policy addressing physician orders. During an interview on 06/06/23 at 03:50 p.m., Resident (#147) complained of having a catheter and stated, I want it out. Physician orders on 04/27/2023 at 7:23 a.m., stated, Attempt voiding trial with next scheduled catheter change (5-16-2023). Remove catheter in the morning. Leave out for 4 hours and push fluids. Resident to void immediately before bladder scan. Replace 16 Fr [French] foley catheter with 10 mL [milliliter] balloon if bladder scan amount 250 mL or greater. Update urology if he passed or failed voiding trial. Review of the resident's…

    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 · D2023-06-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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, review of facility policy, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate labeling of medications for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #56) observed during insulin administration. Failure to obtain an accurate label for an insulin pen following an order change may result in residents receiving too much/little insulin and/or having a negative reaction. Findings include: Review of the facility policy Medication Labeling occurred on 06/08/23. This policy, revised May 2016, stated, . All legend resident medications regardless of source shall be properly labeled as follows . If necessary, a signal type label shall be placed on the medication indicating that there has been a change order affecting the administration of the medication and that the nurse should turn to the resident's health record for correct information . Review of Resident #56's medical record occurred on 06/07/23. A physician's order, dated 04/28/23, included Lantus 10 units subcutaneous every morning. Observation on 06/07/23 at 8:16 a.m. showed Resident #56's Lantus Solostar…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-06-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview the facility failed to store dietary supplements under safe and sanitary conditions in 2 of 5 medication carts (Riverside Long Hall and [NAME] Short Hall) observed. Failure to remove scoops in dietary supplements may result in contamination of supplements or spread of infection to residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Dining Services Policy, occurred 06/08/23. This policy, revised 2017, stated, . Sufficient storage facilities are provided to keep food safe . and by methods designed to prevent contamination. Scoops are not to be stored in food or ice containers. - Observation on 06/06/23 at 3:10 p.m. of the Riverside Long Hall medication cart showed a container of PUSH Collagen Dipeptide Concentrate powder (a wound healing dietary supplement) for Resident #70 with a scoop in the container. - Observation on 06/06/23 at 4:30 p.m. of the [NAME] Short Hall medication cart showed a container of PUSH Collagen Dipeptide…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary 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

$20,112 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $7,008 — penalty dated 2025-06-19
  • $13,104 — penalty dated 2024-05-16

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.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
VALLEY SENIOR LIVINGOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/07/2025
BERGE, SCOTTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/25/2023
BROWN, MICHAELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/28/2020
COLENSO, THOMASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/30/2024
MOLMEN, DAVIDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/23/2019
MOORE, PATRICKIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/25/2017
REED, MARGARETIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/23/2019
SVENDSON, CAROLIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/25/2023
THOMPSON, DWIGHTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/25/2023
RYDLAND, GARTHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/11/2014
ALTRU HEALTH SYSTEMOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/21/2025
ANDERSON, MEGANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/31/2014
BAUMGARTEN, JESSICAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/06/2015
BOTT, LORILEEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/29/2004
EDWARDS, ADAMIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/05/2021
HATHAWAY, SONJAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/19/2023
HENDERSON, CHRISTOPHERIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/25/2018
HOEGER, NANNETTEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/03/2023
LIEN, MICHAELIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/17/2005
LITSEY, JOEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/02/2023
RERICK, LEEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 11/10/2021
SAFRANSKI, TINAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2022
STETHEM, RENITAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/13/2013

CMS files one row per role, so the 69 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

$35.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+2.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.2M
Related-party expense7% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 0%Medicare 10%Other / private 90%

This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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

$500per resident / day
operating cost
$15,190per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$513per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

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 355067. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-19, 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