Dakota Alpha
1303 27th Street NW, Mandan, ND 58554 · Non profit - Corporation · 20 certified beds · (701) 663-0376 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.0% | 19.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.3% | 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 | 1.3% | 2.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 19.7% | 4.4% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 3.8% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse 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 | 5.4% | 17.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.1% | 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 | 1.6% | 4.9% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.5% | 24.9% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 81.0% | 22.7% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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 0.77 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 20 beds and averages 19.7 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 0 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 4.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.32 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.88 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.24 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.58 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-09 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide medication in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #5) observed during medication pass. Failure to ensure the facility's stock medication formulary accommodated physicians' orders and/or staff clarified orders to match the formulary stock medication supply resulted in Resident #5 and possibly other residents receiving an inaccurate medication dose and may result in unintended therapeutic results. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administration of Medications occurred on 07/09/25. This policy, dated 07/01/25, stated, Procedure: Medications are administered . as ordered by the physician . Ensure that the six rights of medication administration are followed: . Right dosage . Review of Resident #5's medical record occurred on 07/08/25. A physician's order, dated 06/01/23, stated, Calcium-Vitamin D Tablet 600-200 MG [milligrams]-UNIT [Calcium 600 mg with Vitamin D 200 units (equivalent to 5 micrograms)] Give 1 tablet by mouth two…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 1 supplemental resident (Resident #7) observed during cares. Failure to practice infection control standards related to enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) guidance at https://www.cms.gov/medicare/health-safety-standards/quality-safety-oversight-general-information/policy-memos-states-and-cms-locations/enhanced-barrier-precautions-nursing-homes-prevent-spread-multidrug-resistant-organisms-mdros, dated March 20, 2024, titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs), stated, EBP are indicated for residents with . indwelling medical devices even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a MDRO. Indwelling medical device examples . feeding tubes . Review of Resident #7'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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure food is prepared and stored in a clean and sanitary manner in 1 of 1 kitchen and 1 of 1 kitchenette (Resident Kitchen). Failure to ensure cleanliness of the kitchen, dishware, and food storage areas, to properly store raw and ready-to-eat foods and discard outdated food items has the potential to result in foodborne illness to residents, visitors, and staff. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Food Safety Requirements occurred on 05/29/24. This policy, revised 01/31/23, stated, . Food safety practices shall be followed throughout the facility's entire food handling process. Elements of the process include the following: . Storage of food in a manner that helps prevent deterioration or contamination of the food . Preparation of food, including thawing . Equipment used in the handling of food, including dishes, utensils, mixers, grinders, and other equipment that comes in contact with the food. Practices to maintain safe refrigerated storage include: . storing raw…
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 before2024-05-30 · 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 for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #11) observed during a dressing change. Failure to place a barrier and establish an area for soiled products has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Clean Dressing Change occurred on 05/30/24. This policy, dated 02/09/23, stated, . Set up clean field with needed supplies for wound cleansing and dressing application: a.) If a table is available, wipe clean before use. b.) Place a disposable cloth or linen saver on the overbed table or available surface. Establish area for soiled products to be placed (Chux [disposable pad] or plastic bag). Observation on 05/29/24 at 11:00 a.m. showed a nurse (#2) placed supplies for a dressing change on Resident #11's bedside table. The nurse donned gloves, removed the dressing from the resident's infected toe, removed her gloves, performed hand hygiene, donned gloves, and used gauze and a wound cleanser to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-13 · 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 nutrition and food services supervisor (#1) obtained the proper qualifications to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. Failure to ensure staff have the qualifications to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services has the potential to result in foodborne illness to residents, staff, and visitors. Findings include: During an interview on 07/13/23 at 12:36 p.m., the nutrition and food services supervisor (#1) confirmed they have not completed the necessary courses required for the director of food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure the supervisor (#1) 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 · E2023-07-13 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe and clean environment for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #8 and #15) and 2 supplemental residents (Resident #4 and #9) with personal fans. Failure to clean personal fans does not provide a safe/clean environment and has the potential to place the residents at risk for illness. Findings include: Observations on 07/11/23 from 9:50 a.m. to 10:05 a.m., showed the following: * Resident #4 lying in bed with a tower fan (visible dust on the outside grate) blowing air directly toward the resident. * Resident #8 lying in bed with an oscillating stand fan (visible dust on the outside grate covering the fan blade) blowing air directly toward the resident. * Resident #9 lying in bed with a tower fan (visible dust on the outside grate) blowing air directly toward the resident. * Resident #15 lying in bed with a tower fan (visible dust on the outside grate) blowing air directly toward the resident. The facility failed to provide a policy related to the cleaning of residents' personal fans. During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-13 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide resident representatives copies of the quarterly financial statements for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #4 and #17) reviewed for personal fund accounts. Failure to provide quarterly statements to the individuals designated by the residents to make financial decisions on their behalf prevented the representatives from verifying transactions and fund balances. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Spending Accounts occurred on 07/13/23. This policy, revised 03/09/23, stated, . Dakota Alpha can establish a Resident Spending Account that is separate from Dakota Alpha's operating accounts if the resident chooses. Residents will be given an accounting of their funds held by the Administrative Assistant quarterly, and a copy is placed in their file. Family interviews identified the following: * 07/11/23 at 3:07 p.m., Resident #4's guardian indicated she had not received any quarterly financial statements. * 07/11/23 at 3:18 p.m., Resident #17's family…
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 before2023-07-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for 3 of 4 residents (Residents #3, #6, and #16) observed during medication administration. Failure to properly prepare insulin pens (Residents #6 and #16), follow physician orders for blood glucose monitoring (Resident #16), and check gastric tube placement (Resident #3), may result in residents receiving inaccurate doses of insulin, adverse reactions due to high blood glucose levels, and medications not delivered to the stomach. Findings include: INSULIN PENS Review of the facility procedure titled Insulin Pen occurred on 07/13/23. This procedure, dated 06/06/23, stated, . 11. g. Attach safety needle: . iv. Twist open and remove outer cover from the pen needle. h. Prime the insulin pen: i. Dial 2 units by turning the dose selector clockwise. ii. With the needle pointing up, push the plunger, and watch to see that at least one drop of insulin appears on the tip of the needle. If not, repeat until at least one drop appears. Observation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-13 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #19) diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) received appropriate treatment and services to meet his assessed needs. Failure to provide appropriate person-centered and individualized treatment and services may result in Resident #19's inability to attain his highest practicable mental and psychosocial wellbeing. Findings include: The facility failed to provide a copy of their policy addressing trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Review of Resident #19's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], identified a diagnosis of PTSD. Current medications included antianxiety, antidepressant, and antipsychotics. During an interview on 07/12/23 at 3:30 p.m., an administrative nurse (#2) stated, We do not have a PTSD assessment. We do have the PHQ-9 assessment [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 - Mental Health Screening for depression]. A…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANSETH, LINDA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2006 |
| BITZ, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2013 |
| FROELICH, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/01/2004 |
| MYERCHIN, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2010 |
| PORTER, JANE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2009 |
| WALD, JULIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/01/2025 |
| WEISBECK, LEE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/01/2022 |
| KRAMER, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/23/2015 |
| REMBOLDT, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| HIT INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/1983 |
| QUISNO, JACQUELINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2018 |
| VANDERVORSTE, KELLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/22/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.
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 355101. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-09, 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.