St Rose Care Center
315 1st St SE, Lamoure, ND 58458 · Non profit - Corporation · 36 certified beds · (701) 883-5363 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (82%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
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 2 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 | 20.0% | 19.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.0% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 2.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.0% | 4.4% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.6% | 5.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.3% | 17.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.0% | 17.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 4.9% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.8% | 24.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 43.5% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.81 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.07 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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
| 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 | 0.65 | 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 36 beds and averages 31.4 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.03 is below 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.53 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 82% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-04-01 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 culinary services supervisor (#2) obtained the proper qualifications to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. Failure to ensure the facility had qualified dietary management to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services may result in foodborne illness to residents, staff, and visitors.Findings include:During an interview on the afternoon of 03/31/26, the culinary services supervisor (#2) stated she is currently enrolled in a certified dietary manager course but has not completed it.The facility failed to ensure the culinary services supervisor (#2) completed the required education for a certified dietary manager, certified food service manager, or a national certification for food service management and safety from a national certifying body.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to discard spoiled and expired food in 1 of 1 kitchen. Failure to discard spoiled and expired food may affect the quality of the food and may result in foodborne illness to residents, staff, and visitors.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Food Storage - Perishable occurred on 04/01/26. This policy, dated August 2019, stated, . Sanitary procedures will be maintained in perishable food storage to keep foods safe, wholesome and appetizing; and to prevent contamination.Observation of the main kitchen occurred on 03/30/26 at 11:05 a.m. and showed the following:* One unopened packaged head of lettuce with visible browning and moisture* One container of cottage cheese with an expiration date of 03/10/26* One snack Jello with an expiration date of 01/26/26* Butter scotch baking chips with an expiration date of May 2025During an interview on 03/30/26 at 11:30 a.m., the culinary services supervisor (#2) confirmed she expected staff to discard the expired and spoiled food items.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to implement standard infection control practices for 1 of 9 sampled residents (Resident #3) observed during cares and 1 of 1 laundry room observed. Failure to practice infection control standards related to hand hygiene, and handling/transporting of soiled linen has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Hand Hygiene occurred on 04/01/26. This policy, dated September 2023, stated, . Times to Perform Hand Hygiene are, but not limited to: . After contact with a resident's . body fluids or excretions . After removing gloves . Review of facility policy titled Linen and Laundry occurred on 04/01/26. This policy, dated 05/15/24, stated, .Clean linen must always be kept separate from contaminated linen. A functional barrier must separate soiled and clean area. - Observation on 03/30/26 at 1:59 p.m. showed Resident #3 in bed. Two certified nurse aides (CNA) (#3 and #4) applied gowns, gloves, and masks, and entered Resident #3'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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-01 · 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 the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual (Version 1.20.1), and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 2 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #2 and #13). 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 2025, pages A-30-32, stated, . Section A1500: Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) . Coding Instructions . Code 1, yes: if PASRR Level II screening determined that the resident has a serious mental illness . and continue to A1510 . Coding instructions Code A, Serious mental illness: if resident has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness .- Review of Resident #2's medical record occurred on all days of survey.…
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 · D2026-04-01 · 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 observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure compliance with provider orders for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #33), observed with medications at the bedside. Failure to follow physician orders may result in medication errors and place the resident and/or others at risk for harm.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Self-Administration of Medications occurred on 04/01/26. This policy, dated 04/10/25, stated, . The nursing associates will assess each resident's mental and physical abilities to determine whether self-administering medications is clinically appropriate for the resident. If it is determined a resident cannot safely self-administer medications, the nursing associates will administer the medication. Review of Resident #33's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A Self-Administration of Medication assessment, dated 11/25/25, stated, . Does the resident want to self-administer medications . No. A physician's order, dated 11/25/24, stated, Medications: May give Whole, observe her take.…
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 before2026-04-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, review of professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate medication labeling to facilitate precautions and safe administration for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #42) receiving intravenous (IV) medication. Failure to include the infusion rate and specific administration route on the medication label may result in inaccurate medication administration and placed the resident at risk for adverse outcomes. Findings include: Review of facility the policy titled Infusion Therapy Medication Administration occurred on 04/01/26. This undated policy stated, . Regulate flow of medication infusion as prescribed. Review of the pharmaceutical professional reference [NAME], Rocephin occurred 03/31/26. This reference stated, . Intravenous injection . For i.v. injection, Rocephin 1 g [gram] in 10 ml [milliliter], of sterile water for injections. The intravenous administration should be given over 2-4 minutes.Review of Resident…
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 · D2025-03-20 · 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 facility policy and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care in a manner that maintained, enhanced, and respected the resident's dignity and individuality for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident #22) who received insulin in a public area and in 1 of 1 activity room. Failure to administer insulin in a private area, to address the resident with their preferred name, and remove incontinence pads from chairs in the activity room, does not preserve the resident's personal dignity and has the potential to affect the resident's psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights and Notifications of Resident Rights occurred on 03/20/25. This policy, revised 01/16/24, stated, Resident Rights include . Respect and Dignity . Privacy and Confidentiality . Review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications occurred on 03/20/25. This policy, revised 2020, stated, . Do not administer . injections in public . - Observation on 03/18/25 at 3:39 p.m. showed a certified nurse aide (CNA) (#3) entered…
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 before2025-03-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate medication labeling for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #20) receiving medications through a gastrostomy tube (G-tube). Failure to ensure medication labels matched physician orders may result in administration via incorrect route. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications occurred on 03/19/25. This policy, dated 2020, stated, . To ensure safe administration of resident's medication as indicated and ordered by the provider . To administer resident medications in a safe and accurate manner that will ensure the 6 rights of patient identification for administration . Administer medications following the 6 rights of medication administration: . Right Route . Review of Resident #20's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The medical record identified Resident #20 as NPO (nothing by mouth) and medications administered per a G-tube. Physician's orders for Tylenol, Baclofen (a muscle relaxer), Warfarin (a blood thinner),…
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 before2025-03-20 · 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, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #28) and 1 supplemental resident (Resident #2) observed during cares. Failure to practice infection control standards related to hand hygiene has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene occurred on 03/19/25. This policy, revised September 2023, stated, . All associates will be trained and competent . proper hand hygiene practices. Hand hygiene. After removing gloves. Before and after direct resident care . - Observation on 03/18/25 at 3:28 p.m. showed a certified nurse aide (CNA) (#3) assisted Resident #28 with perineal cares. The CNA (#3) applied gloves, performed perineal cares and without removing the gloves, the CNA brushed food crumbs from the bed linen, lifted the resident's legs on to the bed, and lowered the bed. The CNA (#3) failed to remove the soiled gloves and perform hand hygiene after performing…
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 · Fcited before2024-02-22 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of dietary department manager employment histories and staff interview, the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified dietary manager to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services. Failure to ensure qualified staff have the appropriate competencies and skill sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services has the potential to result in foodborne illness and/or adverse consequences to residents, staff, and visitors. Findings include: During an interview on 02/20/24 at 11:45 a.m., a licensed registered dietician (LRD) (#2) stated she is employed at the facility on a part-time basis (approximately 16 hours per week), oversees the kitchen, food, and nutrition services, and the facility has not had a dietary manager for a while. Review of the dietary department manager employment histories identified the facility employed three individuals as DMs over the past year. The individuals failed to complete the required training and certification during their employment. The facility failed to ensure a full-time dietary manager with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-22 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 notify the resident representative for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #16) reviewed for elopement. Failure to notify the resident representative of the elopements does not allow the representative to be fully informed of the resident's current status. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Change in Condition occurred on 02/22/24. This undated policy stated, . When a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status is identified by the licensed nurse, or when there is a need to alter treatment significantly, the licensed nursing associate consults with the attending provider and notify the resident/resident representative. Review of Resident #16's medical record occurred all days of survey. The record identified the resident triggered the wanderguard system by exiting a facility door (elopement) seven times between November 2023-February 2024. The record lacked evidence the facility notified the resident representative on 11/27/23, 12/14/23,…
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 before2024-02-22 · 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 the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual (Version 1.18.11), and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #12, #14 and #17) reviewed for antiplatelet (medicine that stops blood cells from sticking together and forming a blood clot) use. 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 2023, page N-8, states, . N0415I1. Antiplatelet: Check if an antiplatelet medication (e.g., aspirin/extended release, dipyridamole, clopidogrel) was taken by the resident at any time during the 7-day observation period . - Review of Resident #12, #14, and #17's medical record occurred on all days of survey and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide oral hygiene for 1 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #15) dependent on staff for assistance with oral cares. Failure to provide oral care for a dependent resident may result in poor hygiene, increased gum problems, decline in oral intake, and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL) occurred on 02/22/24. This undated policy stated, . Care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with: a. Hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care) . During an interview on 02/20/24 at 12:06 p.m., Resident #15 reported staff do not brush her dentures and observation showed a pink substance between the resident's bottom teeth. Review of Resident #15's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The current care plan…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to BENEDICTINE HEALTH SYSTEM — 23 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 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 4.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 22 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BENEDICTINE LIVING COMMUNITIES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 06/01/1989 |
| BENEDICTINE HEALTH SYSTEM | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 06/01/1989 |
| CARLEY, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| DEWITT, BETTY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/01/2003 |
| GRAEBER, LUANNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/18/2023 |
| GREFF, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/01/2018 |
| HACK, TAYLAR | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| BERGIEN, TRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/17/2016 |
| RYMANOWSKI, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2008 |
| MERTZ-HACK, TARA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| PETERSON, KELSEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/03/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
This home reported $275K 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
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 355107. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-01, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.