St Gerard's Community Of Care
613 1st Ave SW, Hankinson, ND 58041 · Non profit - Church related · 34 certified beds · (701) 242-7891 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0610) — most recent Jun 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $48,233 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-13)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 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
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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 1 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 27.1% | 19.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.6% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 2.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.8% | 4.4% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 7.4% | 5.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.6% | 17.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.3% | 17.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.0% | 4.9% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 34.0% | 24.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.9% | 22.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.38 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.11 | 1.86 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
44.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 26 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.08 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 44.2%CMS range 28.8–56.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 7.4–16.3 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.89 | 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 34 beds and averages 30.9 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.77 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.18 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.95 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.92 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-06-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect 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 observation, record review, review of facility policy, and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 supplemental residents (Resident #13, #19, and #23) with impaired cognition and unable to consent were free from resident to resident abuse. Failure to assess, care plan, and operationalize a plan/process may result in unwanted physical and/or sexual contact and may cause residents to experience fear, anxiety, and psychosocial harm. During the on-site recertification survey, the team consulted with the State Survey Agency (SSA) and determined an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation existed on 06/09/24. The facility failed to assess, care plan, and operationalize a plan/process for; (1) a resident who seeks frequent close physical contact to do so safely and (2) cognitively impaired residents vulnerable to being the subject of unwanted physical and/or sexual contact, to ensure that all residents only had desired, safe contact with each other. The IJ was identified when a nurse's note…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-06-13 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and family and staff interview, the facility failed investigate incidents of resident to resident abuse for 3 or 3 supplemental resident (Resident #13, #19, and #23) with impaired cognition and unable to consent. Failure to investigate incidents of abuse may result in unwanted physical and/or sexual contact and may cause residents to experience fear, anxiety, and psychosocial harm. During the on-site recertification survey, the team consulted with the State Survey Agency (SSA) and determined an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation existed on 06/09/24. The facility failed to investigate resident to resident abuse. The IJ was identified when a nurse's note in Resident #24's medical record, dated 06/09/24, stated he had kissed two female residents on the cheek (Resident #19 and #23). An observation on 06/12/24 at 3:07 p.m. showed Resident #24 seated on a chair beside Resident #13 who was sitting in a recliner chair facing forward. Resident #24 was sitting…
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 · D2025-07-23 · 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, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed professional standards of practice for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #8, #16, and #23) 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 Pen occurred on 07/23/25. This policy, dated 04/09/23, stated, . Prime the insulin pen: i. Dial 2 units by turning the dose selector clockwise. ii. With the needle pointing up, push the plunger, and watch to see that at least one drop of insulin appears on the tip of the needle. If not, repeat until at least one drop appears.-Observation on 07/22/25 at 5:30 p.m. showed a nurse (#4) prepared Resident #16's insulin pen for administration. The nurse (#4) dialed the pen to 3 units and with the needle cap on, primed the pen with the needle pointed horizontally. The nurse primed the insulin pen with 3 units instead of 2 units and failed 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 · Dcited before2025-07-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 2 of 8 sampled residents (Residents #8 and #15) and 1 supplemental resident (Resident #18) observed during cares. Failure to practice infection control standards related to enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and hand hygiene has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions occurred on 07/23/25. This policy, dated 04/08/24, stated, . Enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities. Initiation of Enhanced Barrier Precautions: An order for enhanced barrier precautions will be obtained for residents with any of the following: . indwelling medical devices (e.g., central lines, urinary catheters . Implementation of Enhanced Barrier Precautions: . PPE…
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 · F2024-06-13 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — widespreadDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to protect all residents in the facility (31 of 31 residents) by failing to screen unlicensed employees prior to employment. Failure to screen unlicensed employees placed all residents at risk for abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. Findings included: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation occurred on 06/13/24. This policy, revised June 2023, stated, It is the policy of the facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. A. Screening 1. Potential employees will be screened for a history of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property. a. Background, reference, and credentials' checks shall be conducted on potential employees, contracted temporary staff, students affiliated with academic institutions,…
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 · E2024-06-13 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and family and staff interview, the facility failed to report incidents of resident to resident abuse to the Administrator and State Survey Agency (SSA) for 3 of 3 supplemental residents (Resident #13, #19, and #23) with cognitive impairments and unable to consent. Failure to report incidents of abuse may result in unwanted physical and/or sexual contact and may cause residents to experience fear, anxiety, and psychosocial harm. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy occurred on 06/13/24. This policy, dated June 2023 stated, . It is the policy of St. Gerard's Community of Care to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident . A. Any staff witnessing or possessing reliable knowledge of any act, or suspect act, involving . abuse . must notify their department supervisor immediately. Observation on 06/12/24 at 3:07 p.m. showed Resident #24 seated on a chair beside…
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 · D2024-06-13 · 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
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 review and revise care plans to reflect residents' current status for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #4 and #10). Failure to update care plans limited staffs' ability to communicate needs and ensure continuity of care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Nursing Care Plans occurred on 06/13/24. This policy, dated November 2017, stated, . POLICY: A person centered plan of care shall be developed . Evaluation of approaches and goals shall be charted on care plans by the nurse doing the monthly charting for the resident. - Review of Resident #4's medical record occurred on all days of survey and included diagnoses of traumatic brain disorder and epilepsy. The current care plan stated, . No water in room . The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating cognitively intact. Observation on 06/11/24…
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 · D2024-06-13 · 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 facility policy, review of manufacturer's instructions, review of facility investigation reports, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide adequate assistance for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #3 and #10) observed during a sit-to-stand mechanical lift transfer and failed to complete an investigation for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #4) with a history of falls and a fracture. Failure to ensure proper use of the stand lift, including use of the seat and leg strap, and failure complete a fall investigation, including intervention to alleviate falls, placed the residents at risk of experiencing pain/discomfort and/or possible accidents with/without injury. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled RESIDENT INCIDENT FOLLOWUP REPORT occurred on 06/13/24. This policy, dated March 2016, stated, . To review the individual incident reports and state the corrective action taken . 1. The DON [director of nursing] or charge nurse will review each incident report within 24 hours of the occurrence. 2. After reviewing…
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 before2024-06-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an effective infection prevention and control program for a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of infections for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #10 and #18) observed during care and 1 of 2 certified nurse aides (CNAs) reviewed for handwashing (CNA #4). Failure to removed soiled gloves and perform hand hygiene after incontinence cares and failure to disinfect multi-use equipment may result in exposure of infections to residents, staff, and visitors. Findings included: Review of the facility policy titled Infectious Disease Control Manual occurred on 06/12/24. This undated policy stated, General Aseptic Technique section: ii. 10 key times to wash your hands 2.) Should be first thing you do when you enter the resident room and the last thing you do before leaving. 4.) Between resident contacts. 5.) Before and after tending to any personal needs or contact with your face, or mouth (sneezing, blowing your…
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 · D2023-07-19 · 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 Based on record review, review of professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments that accurately reflected the resident's status for 3 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #7, #8, and #26). Failure to correctly code MDS assessments may affect the development of an accurate care plan and impact resident care. Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, revised October 2019, pages N-6 and N-7, stated, . Coding Instructions . N0410E, Anticoagulant (e.g., warfarin, heparin, or low- molecular weight heparin): Record the number of days an anticoagulant medication was received by the resident at any time during the 7-day look-back period (or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days). Do not code antiplatelet medications such as aspirin/extended release, dipyridamole, or clopidogrel here. N0410H, Opioid: Record the number of days an opioid medication was received by the resident at any time during the 7-day look-back period…
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
$48,233 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $48,233 — penalty dated 2024-06-13
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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF DILLINGEN | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/14/2026 |
| BELISLE, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2004 |
| HOVEL, LOREN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| LIES, STEVEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/1989 |
| ROGGENBUCK, ELAINE MARIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/09/2018 |
| SCHAFER, NANCY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| FOERTSCH, JILL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/14/2026 |
| STRAND, DUANE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2010 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
About 70% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 355038. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-23, 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.