Smp Health - Ave Maria
501 19th St NE, Jamestown, ND 58401 · Non profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (701) 252-5660 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)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $6,788 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 held steady at 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 | 20.7% | 19.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 2.6% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 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 | 2.4% | 5.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.4% | 17.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.6% | 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 | 4.3% | 4.9% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.3% | 24.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.4% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.0% | 88.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.7% | 19.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.9% | 11.4% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.52 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.70 | 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.
42.3% 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 72 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.4% 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 61 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 3% 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 | 42.3%CMS range 33.3–50.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 6.2–15.4 | 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 | 57.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 41.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 49.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.0–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 100 beds and averages 96.7 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 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 4.98 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.61 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 4.19 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.30 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-05-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 record review, review of facility policy, review of the facility reported incident (FRI), and resident/staff interview, the facility failed to protect 2 of 2 sampled resident's (Resident #6 and #7) right to be free from physical abuse from each other. Failure to ensure residents remained free from physical abuse resulted in a physical altercation involving hair pulling, hitting, and biting which necessitated bloodborne pathogen testing. Findings include: The surveyor determined a deficient practice existed on 04/20/26. The facility implemented and completed corrective actions on 04/22/26. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse occurred on 05/20/26. This policy, revised January 2026, stated, Abuse is defined as a willful infliction of injury . intimidation . with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish . Physical Abuse is defined as hitting, slapping, pinching, kicking, etc. Review of the initial FRI, dated 04/20/26, stated, . [Resident #6] and [Resident #7] were roommates at the time of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-06-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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
Based on record review, review of facility policy, review of the facility's investigation reports, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to remain free from mental and/or physical abuse for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #2) who had a rag placed in her mouth by staff to silence her. Failure to provide the services necessary to avoid mental anguish and emotional distress, resulted in an unsafe environment for Resident #2 and may result in fear, anxiety, and/or psychosocial harm. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective actions the facility implemented immediately after hearing the concerns reported by staff. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse occurred on 06/11/24. This policy, reviewed January 2024, stated: * Abuse is defined as . intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish, or deprivation of . services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being. * Physical abuse is defined as . controlling…
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 before2025-12-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 supplemental resident (Resident #35) was free from resident-to-resident abuse. Failure to assess, care plan, and follow the plan/process may result in physical harm, fear, anxiety, and psychosocial harm to all residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse occurred on 12/11/25. This policy, dated January 2025, stated, Each resident has the right to be free of verbal . abuse . To ensure these rights SMP [Sisters [NAME] of the Presentation] Health-Ave [NAME] has developed and implemented policies and procedures, which include the components of screening, training, prevention, identification, protection, investigation, and reporting/response. Verbal abuse is defined as . intimidation . mental anguish .Review of the facility policy titled, Behavior Management occurred on 12/11/25. This policy, dated January 2025, stated, . POLICY: Behavior monitoring and assessment will be carried…
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 · D2025-12-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to report incidents of resident-to-resident abuse to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 of 1 supplemental resident (Resident #35) who experienced verbal abuse. Failure to report resident-to-resident abuse allegations places all residents at risk of potential abuse/neglect. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse occurred on 12/11/25. This policy, dated January 2025, stated, Each resident has the right to be free of verbal . abuse . Procedure .Any alleged incident must be reported to the North Dakota Health Department immediately (within 24 hours or less) .- Review of Resident #35's medical record occurred on 12/10/25 and identified an admission date of 10/10/25. Resident #4 was moved to the same room as Resident #35 on 10/22/25.- Review of Resident #4's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The nursing progress notes showed the following: * 11/24/25 at 10:24 p.m., stated, . calling room mate [sic] vulgar names and telling staff to 'knock him out' .* 12/08/25 at…
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 · D2025-12-11 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to investigate an incident of resident to resident abuse for 1 or 1 supplemental resident (Resident #35) who experienced verbal abuse. Failure to investigate incidents of abuse may result physical harm, fear, anxiety, and psychosocial harm for all residents Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse occurred on 12/11/25. This policy, dated January 2025, stated, Each resident has the right to be free of verbal . abuse . To ensure these rights . policies and procedures, which include . investigation . All alleged abuse will be investigated by the Director of Nursing .- Review of Resident #35's medical record occurred on 12/10/25 and showed an admission date of 10/10/25 and Resident #4 was moved to the same room as Resident #35 on 10/22/25.- Review of Resident #4's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Review of the progress notes showed the following: * 11/24/25 at 10:24 p.m., stated, . calling room mate [sic] vulgar names and telling staff to 'knock him out' .*…
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 before2025-12-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided necessary care and services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #4) with diabetes. Failure to follow physician orders for out-of-range blood sugar levels may result in adverse health events.Findings include: Kozier & Erb's Fundamentals of Nursing, Concepts, Process and Practice, 11th Edition eText, 2021, Pearson, Boston, Massachusetts, page 63, stated, . It is the nurse's responsibility to seek clarification of ambiguous or seemingly erroneous orders from the prescriber. If the order is neither ambiguous nor apparently erroneous, the nurse is responsible for carrying it out. Review of Resident #4's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus. The current care plan stated, [Resident] has Diabetes mellitus with polyneuropathy [a degeneration of peripheral nerves]. will be free from any s/sx [signs/symptoms] of hyperglycemia [high blood sugar] . will be free from any s/sx of hypoglycemia [low blood sugar] . will have no complications related to diabetes…
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 · E2024-09-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control for 2 of 9 sampled residents (Resident #3 and #25) and 2 supplemental residents (Resident #50 and #70) observed during cares/dressing change and glucose monitoring. Failure to follow infection control practices during resident cares related to hand hygiene, enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), and cleaning of a glucometer has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: HAND HYGIENE Review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene occurred on 09/11/24. This policy, revised July 2024, stated, . Hand Hygiene Should Be Practiced: . Before applying and after removing gloves. Review of the facility policy titled Dressing: Clean occurred on 09/11/24. This policy, dated June 2024, stated, . [NAME] [put on] clean gloves and remove the dressing. Dispose of the gloves, perform hand hygiene and don a clean pair of gloves. Apply dressing to the area as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-11 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of the North Dakota Long Term Care Ombudsman Program Guide to Resident Rights, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care in a manner that promoted, maintained, or enhanced the resident's dignity for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #3) with a wound vacuum. Failure to cover a wound vacuum collection container does not preserve the resident's personal dignity and/or enhance their quality of life and has the potential to affect the resident's psychosocial well-being. Findings include: The North Dakota Long Term Care Ombudsman Program's Guide to Resident Rights, updated 03/21/23, page 16, stated, . The facility must treat you courteously, fairly and with dignity. Observation on 09/10/24 at 11:21 a.m. showed Resident #3 sitting in the hallway in front of the television with the wound vacuum and its contents visible. Observation on 09/10/24 at 11:44 a.m. showed Resident #3 sitting in the hallway in front of the television with a hand towel partially covering the wound vacuum canister, however, the contents of the wound vacuum canister remained…
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 · D2024-09-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate labeling of medications for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #70) observed receiving medication from an injector pen. Failure to obtain a label for an insulin pen may result in a resident receiving the wrong medication or an incorrect dose. Findings include: Review of a policy titled Medication Storage/Labeling occurred on 09/11/24. This policy, revised July 2024, stated, . Medications are labeled by pharmacy. If receiving medications from any mail order pharmacies that are not labeled individually, label with resident identification information . Observation on 07/10/24 at 8:17 a.m. showed a nurse (#1) prepared Resident #70's Novolog insulin pen for administration. The pharmacy label on the pen lacked a legible label with the resident's name or other identifying information. During an interview on 09/11/24 at 2:44 p.m., an administrative nurse (#2) confirmed Resident #70's Novolog insulin pen lacked a legible label.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide treatment in accordance with the resident's plan of care for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #49) with a history of a diabetic heel ulcer. Failure to apply heel protecting boots as ordered may result in the reoccurrence or worsening of heel ulcers. Findings include: Review of Resident #49's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included Type II Diabetes Mellitus and a history of diabetic heel ulcer (healed in August 2023). A physician's order, dated 08/22/23, stated, Prevalon boot [heel protecting soft boots] to BLE [bilateral lower extremities] when in bed. Observations on the morning of 10/10/23 and afternoon of 10/10/23 showed Resident #49 resting in bed without heel boots on her feet. Observation showed her heels rested on the mattress. During an observation on the afternoon of 10/11/23, a nurse (#2) entered Resident #49's room, gave the heel boots to two certified nurse aides (CNAs) (#3 and #4), and indicated Resident #49 needed to wear them in bed.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-12 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' records contained the hospice election form and the certification of a terminal illness for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #53, #86, and #88) receiving hospice services. Failure to obtain these documents limits staff's ability to ensure coordination of care between the facility and the hospice. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Hospice Care occurred on 10/11/23. This policy, dated January 2022, stated, . Documentation and maintenance of the hospice record: [name of facility] will maintain its own resident documentation system . physician orders and other relevant documentation in order to facilitate communication between the caregivers. - Review of Resident #53's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Resident #53 elected Hospice services on 08/11/23. The medical record lacked the Certificate of Terminal Illness completed by the Hospice provider. - Review of Resident #86's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$6,788 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $6,788 — 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SMP HEALTH — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 4.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| LAGODINSKI, TONIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2019 |
| CARSON, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2020 |
| HANSEN, BECKY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| HOULE, SHARON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/06/2020 |
| MONTECUOLLO, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2017 |
| REDLIN, FRANK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2017 |
| SCHMITZ, LYNETTE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2015 |
| ALTON, AARON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/01/2002 |
| SISTERS OF MARY OF THE PRESENTATION LONG TERM CARE | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2002 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.
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.
This home reported $554K 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 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in ND
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 355082. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-11, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.