Nelson County Health System Care Center
108 E Nyhus Ave, McVille, ND 58254 · Government - City · 35 certified beds · (701) 322-4314 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)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $36,855 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-26)
- 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 (1/5)
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 | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 | 28.2% | 19.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.1% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.6% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 10.0% | 5.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.4% | 17.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.5% | 17.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.9% | 98.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.9% | 4.9% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.8% | 24.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.0% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.81 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.34 | 1.86 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. 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.
Met the expected recovery: 30.0% 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 20 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 30.0% | 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 | 5.0% | 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 | 30.0% | 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 | 95.7% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 4.3% | 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 | 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 35 beds and averages 32.0 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.07 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.73 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.32 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-11-26 · 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 observation, record review, review of the facility reported incident, review of facility policy, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from abuse from 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #1) who displayed verbal and physical behaviors towards residents. Failure to provide necessary services to protect residents from abuse resulted in physical and psychosocial harm. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition Policy occurred on 11/26/24. This policy, dated July 2021, stated, . Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to . other residents . Review of the facility reported incident identified on 11/02/24 at 7:30 p.m. Resident #1 kicked Resident #2 in the leg. - Review of Resident 1's medical record occurred on 11/26/24. The quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], identified severely impaired cognition. The care plan included, . [Resident #1] has a behavior problem e/b [evidenced by] verbal taunting, seeks out others,…
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 before2026-04-29 · 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 the facility reported incident (FRI) investigations, review of facility policy, and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure residents remain free from abuse for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #2 and #4) who were subjected to physical abuse by Resident #1. Failure to protect residents from physical abuse may result in injury, fear, anxiety, mental anguish, and emotional distress.Findings include:Review of the facility policy, Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment and Misappropriation of Resident Property, occurred on 04/29/26. This policy, dated 07/07/21, stated, . all residents have the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical . abuse . Residents must not be subject to abuse by anyone, including, . other residents .Incident between Resident #1 and #4Review of the facility's initial FRI investigation, dated 01/25/26 at 9:30 p.m. stated, . Incident happened in the west hallway where [Resident#1] grabbed another residents [Resident #4] arm and grabbed, pulled, 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 · D2026-04-29 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of the facility reported incident (FRI) investigations, review of facility policy, and resident interviews, the facility failed to investigate alleged violations of abuse for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #2 and #4). Failure to investigate Resident #1's incidents of abusive behavior, ensure the protection of other residents during the investigation, implement corrective actions, and evaluate the effectiveness of the actions, placed all residents at risk for mistreatment, verbal abuse, and/or experiencing anxiety/fear. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, and misappropriation of Resident Property occurred on 04/29/26. This policy, dated 07/07/21, stated, . The investigation is the process used to try to determine what happened. The nurse begins the investigation immediately. A root cause investigation and analysis will be completed . The investigation will consist of at least the following . An interview with staff members having…
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 before2025-06-23 · 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 the facility reported incident (FRI) and investigation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from abuse for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #1) who displayed physical behaviors towards other residents. Failure to provide necessary services to protect residents from abuse resulted in physical abuse. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective actions the facility implemented immediately following the incident. Findings include: The surveyor determined a deficient practice existed on 06/17/25. The facility implemented and completed corrective action on 06/23/25. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation of Resident Property occurred on 06/24/25. This policy, revised 07/07/21, stated, . It is the policy of the [facility] that all residents have the right to be free from . physical . abuse . PHYSICAL ABUSE includes hitting, slapping,…
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 before2025-04-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #9) observed with an indwelling catheter. Failure to practice infection control standards related to enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), urinary catheters, and hand hygiene has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions occurred on 04/01/25. This policy, dated April 2024, stated, . Enhanced Barrier Precautions refers to the use of gown and gloves for certain residents during specific high-contact resident care activities that have been found to increase risk for transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. Signage will be posted on the door or wall of the resident room indicating the type of precautions, required personal protective equipment (PPE), and the high-contact resident care activities that require the use of gown and gloves. High-contact resident care activities . Transferring…
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 · D2024-11-26 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 closed record (Resident #1) remained free from a chemical restraint (morphine sulfate-an opioid pain medication). Failure to attempt non-pharmacological interventions and/or utilize the least restrictive alternative medication does not allow the resident to attain and/or maintain his/her highest level of practicable well-being. Findings include: The facility failed to provide a policy on pain management or opioid use when requested. Review of Resident #1's medical record occurred on 01/28/25. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, obsessive compulsive disorder, and dementia with agitation. The current care plan stated, . [Resident #1] has behaviors e/b [evidenced by] verbal taunting, seeks out others, has been physically aggressive at times r/t [related to] Dementia and cognitive decline . Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. Approach/Speak in a calm manner. Divert attention. Remove from situation 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 · F2024-03-21 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Electronic Staffing Data Submission Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) Long-Term Care Facility Policy Manual and staff interview the facility failed to submit direct care staffing information based on payroll data to the Electronic Staffing Data Submission PBJ for 2 of 4 reporting periods. Failure to submit direct care staffing information may result in inaccurate representation of the level of staff in the facility which can impact the quality of care delivered. Findings include: The June 2022, version 2.6 Electronic Staffing Data Submission Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ), pages 1-3, stated, . Direct care staffing and census data will be collected quarterly, and is required to be timely and accurate. Facilities that do not meet these requirements will be considered noncompliant and subject to enforcement actions by CMS. Review of the PBJ Data Staff Report CASPER Report 1705D FY (fiscal year) Quarter 4 (July 1 - September 30, 2023) and Quarter 1 (October 1 - December 31, 2023) occurred on 03/18/23, stated, . Failed to Submit Data for the Quarter. Triggered. During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan to reflect the resident's current status for 3 of 14 sampled residents (Resident #13, #25, and #32). Failure to revise the care plan for Residents #13 and #32 limited the staff's ability to communicate care needs and ensure continuity of care for each resident and failure to update Resident #25's transfer status placed the resident at risk for injury. Findings include: The facility failed to provide a care plan policy. - Review of Resident #13's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The care plan stated, . TOILET USE: Requires assist of 1 staff with mechanical stand lift for toileting. TRANSFER: The resident requires assist of 1 staff w/ [with] mechanical stand lift . A physician's order, dated 01/04/24, stated, Resident will transfer using mechanical stand lift with assist of 1 and gluteal [buttock] strap. Observation on 03/19/24 at 9:59 a.m. showed two certified nurse aides (CNAs) (#7 and #9) assisted Resident #13 with toileting. 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 · D2024-03-21 · 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, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care and services for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident #25) reviewed for edema (fluid retention) and 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #26) observed wearing a splint. Failure to apply compression stockings as ordered may result in worsening edema and failure to obtain an order for use of a splint may result in worsening pain. Findings include: - Review of Resident #25's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A physician's order, dated 08/30/23, stated, Compression stockings to be utilized for edema management. A physicians note, dated 02/20/24, stated, . bilateral lower extremity edema. Chronic. Continue with compressions [stockings] as directed. The care plan stated, . Staff to apply compression stockings to BLE [bilateral lower extremities] for edema management . Observations of Resident #25 showed the following: * On 03/19/24 at 03:26 p.m., wearing non compression stockings. The resident reported she has those socks [compression stockings] but not sure if I have them…
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 · D2024-03-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of professional reference, facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide supervision and assistive devices necessary to prevent accidents for 2 of 14 sampled residents (Residents #13 and #19). Failure to provide supervision of certified nurse aides (CNAs) by a licensed nurse regarding resident transfer modes and failure to utilize safe/proper technique during transfers may result in unnecessary pain, falls and/or injury for residents. Findings included: Review of the North Dakota Administration Code (NDAC) online at www.ndlegis.gov/information/acdata/pdf/33-43-01.pdf stated, . 33-43-01-12. Supervision and delegation of nursing interventions. An individual on the department's nurse aide registry [CNA] may perform nursing interventions which have been delegated by a licensed nurse. An individual on the departments's nurse aide registry as delegated and supervised by a licensed nurse . Review of the facility policy titled STANDING LIFT occurred on 03/21/24. This policy, dated December 2017, stated, . The knee rest has…
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 · D2024-03-21 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of a professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate toileting for 2 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #8 and #13) who required staff assistance with toileting. Failure to provide toileting may result in a loss of dignity and placed residents at risk for skin breakdown, poor grooming/hygiene, decreased self-esteem, urinary tract infections, and risk for fall and/or injuries. Findings include: The facility failed to provide a policy related to toileting of residents. Kozier & Erb's Fundamentals of Nursing: Concepts, Process and Practice, 11th Edition eText, 2021, Pearson, Boston, Massachusetts, page 892, stated, Fecal and Urinary Incontinence: Moisture from incontinence promotes skin maceration [tissue softened by prolonged wetting or soaking] and makes the epidermis more easily eroded and susceptible to injury. Digestive enzymes in feces, urea in urine . also contribute to skin excoriation [area of loss of the superficial layers of the skin .]. Any accumulation of secretions . is irritating to 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 · D2024-03-21 · 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, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure safe and secure storage of medications in 1 of 1 medication carts. Failure to store all medications securely may result in unauthorized access to medications. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration occurred on 03/20/24. This policy, revised 2016, stated, . The medication cart should be locked when left unattended . Medications should not be left on top of the medication cart . if the nurse or CMA [certified medication aide] is in a resident room and the medication cart is not locked . it has to be in an area where the nurse or CMA can see it . Observation on 03/19/24 at 11:47 a.m., showed a staff nurse (#8) left the medication cart unattended for over eight minutes with six insulin pens/vials on top of the medication cart. The medication cart remained unlocked in the hallway and out of view of the nurse. During an interview, on 03/20/24, an administrative nurse (#5) confirmed she expected staff to ensure medications are secured within 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 · Dcited before2024-03-21 · 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, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed standard infection control practices for 2 of 10 sampled residents (Resident #6 and #16) and 1 supplemental resident (Resident#1). Failure to follow infection control practices related to hand hygiene and glove use has the potential for transmission of communicable diseases and infections to residents and staff. Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Handwashing Specifics occurred on 3/21/24. This policy, revised January 2015, stated, . Handwashing decreases contamination of the hands and prevents spread of pathogens . personnel who perform procedures on residents . should wear gloves . even though gloves are worn, hands should still be washed . before, between and after all physical contacts with the resident . before and after performing any personal body function . - Observation on 03/18/24 at 10:18 a.m., showed a certified nurse aide (CNA) (#15) performed incontinence cares on Resident #16 while in bed. Without performing hand hygiene, the CNA (#15) donned…
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 · D2023-03-15 · 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 observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to investigate and report to the State Survey Agency (SSA) potential incidents of abuse/neglect for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #13 and #29) who experienced injury. Failure to investigate and report allegations of abuse/neglect to the SSA places all residents at risk of potential abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled ABUSE, NEGLECT, MISTREATMENT, AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF RESIDENT PROPERTY occurred on 03/14/23. This policy, dated June 24, 2018, stated, . It is the facility's responsibilities to prevent not only abuse, but also those practices and omissions that if left unchecked, lead to abuse. Everyone must monitor the resident for possible signs of abuse: like suspicious or unexplained bruising . All alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source . must be completed within 24 hours of the initial allegation report. Administration will provide a final written report to the North Dakota Department 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-15 · tag F0888 — isolatedEnsure staff are vaccinated for COVID-19
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 implement policies and procedures that included additional precautions, intended to mitigate the transmission and spread of COVID-19, for all staff who are not fully vaccinated for COVID-19 for 2 of 2 unvaccinated staff (Staff A and B). Failure to implement additional precautions for staff who are not fully vaccinated may lead to increased risk of transmission and spread of COVID-19 among patients, staff, and visitors. Findings Include: Review of the policy titled Employee COVID-19 Vaccinations occurred on 03/15/23. This policy, revised 10/15/22, stated, . This policy is developed to ensure that all eligible employees are vaccinated against COVID-19 . will implement additional precautions to mitigate the transmission and spread of COVID-19 for all staff who are not fully vaccinated . They will continue to wear surgical masks, check in when getting to work per recommendations. Review of employee vaccination records identified Staff A and B completed appropriate COVID-19 vaccine…
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
$36,855 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $36,855 — penalty dated 2024-11-26
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NELSON COUNTY HEALTH SYSTEM | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2010 |
| SWENSON, CATHERINE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 10/14/2015 |
| BERG, IVAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2011 |
| JENSEN, BRANDON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/07/2013 |
| LUNDEBY, BRANDON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2011 |
| OXTON, RANAE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2011 |
| STEIN, HEATHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/24/2014 |
| TWETE, ANGELA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/24/2014 |
| TWETE, JUDITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2011 |
| FORDE, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/19/2016 |
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 355052. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-01, 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.