Tioga Medical Center LTC
810 N Welo St, Tioga, ND 58852 · Non profit - Corporation · 30 certified beds · (701) 664-3305 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — 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 $11,408 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-11)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (66%) 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 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 held steady at 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 | 31.8% | 19.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.5% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.7% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.3% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.9% | 4.4% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 1.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 5.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.4% | 17.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.3% | 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 | 10.0% | 4.9% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 37.0% | 24.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.6% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.52 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.41 | 1.86 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 29% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this 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 | 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 30 beds and averages 25.0 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 5.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.96 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.39 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 5.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.22 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.05 to 0.73 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 66% is well above 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 · G2025-02-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility reported incident (FRI), policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical abuse for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #1) who sustained a fracture. Failure to ensure an environment free from abuse resulted in a fracture to Resident #1 and placed all residents at risk for abuse, fear, and anxiety. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation occurred on 02/11/25. This policy, dated June 2021, stated, . Resident to Resident Altercations . Residents who are abusive to other residents must be monitored . Documentation must be in place to identify steps taken . the corrective action taken, and follow-up monitoring . 6. Prevention of Abuse . b. Observe residents behavior and their reactions to other residents . Identify areas of the . environment that may make abuse . more likely to occur, such as secluded areas. Review of the initial FRI occurred on all days of survey and identified an altercation between Residents #1 and #2 which resulted in a fall…
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 · D2026-06-03 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 the residents' right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment for 1 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #6) reviewed for advanced directives. Failure to ensure the medical record accurately reflected each resident's code status limited the facilities ability to communicate to direct care staff and emergency personnel the residents' choice in the event of a medical emergency.Findings include:Review of facility policy titled Advance Directives Policy occurred on 06/03/26. This policy, dated June 2017, stated, Policy: It is the resident's right to formulate an Advance Directive, and to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment. On admission, the facility will determine if the resident has executed an Advance Directive and if not, determine whether the resident would like to formulate an Advance Directive. copies will be made and placed on the chart . facility will periodically assess the resident .Review of Resident #6's medical…
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 · D2026-06-03 · 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's provider of a change in condition for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #3) reviewed for hospitalization. Failure to notify the provider timely of a change in condition delayed physician testing/treatment and contributed to Resident #3's hospitalization.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Notification of Changes occurred on 06/02/26. This undated policy, stated, . The facility must inform the resident/patient, consult with the resident's/patient's physician . when there is a change requiring such notification. Circumstances requiring notification include: Significant change in the resident's/patient's physical, mental or psychosocial conditions such as deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial status. This may include: Life-threatening conditions, or Clinical complications.Review of Resident #3's medical record occurred on all days of survey and identified current use of anticoagulants (a medication to thin the blood/prevent blood clots). 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 before2026-06-03 · 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 observation, record review, and review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual (Version 1.20.1), the facility failed to complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) that accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #22) with a restraint. 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 P-1 and P-5, stated, . PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS: Any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body . Coding Instructions . code the frequency of use: Code 0, not used . Code 2, used daily .Review of Resident #22'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 · Ecited before2025-03-12 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 1.19.1), and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 5 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #3, #8, #9, #17 and #20) and one supplemental resident (Resident #6). 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: SECTION H: BLADDER AND BOWEL The Long-Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, revised October 2024, page H-6, stated, . H0200: Urinary Toileting Program . Steps for assessment: H200C, Current Toileting Program . 1. Review the medical record for evidence of a toileting program being used to manage incontinence during the 7-day look-back period. Note the number of days during the look-back period that the toileting program was implemented…
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 · D2025-03-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #26) reviewed for edema (fluid retention). Failure to ensure consistent implementation and resident refusals of support stockings may result in worsening edema. Findings include: Review of Resident #26's medical record occurred on all days of survey and identified a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. A physician's order, dated 01/23/25, stated, Ted Hose [support stockings to control edema] on in the AM and Off at HS [bedtime] . for Edema. The current care plan stated, . I have a diagnosis of . congestive heart failure . edema . I will remain free of complications related to diagnosis through next review date. I would like staff to monitor for and document any edema and notify my provider as needed. A nursing progress note, dated 01/24/25 at 9:37 a.m., stated, . Does have edema noted to bilateral [both] lower legs at which time resident stated her legs feel itchy at those times . A provider progress note, dated…
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 · D2025-03-12 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from unnecessary psychotropic medications for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #12) reviewed for as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication use. Failure to limit PRN psychotropic medication use to 14 days unless re-evaluated by a practitioner placed the resident at risk of receiving unnecessary medications and experiencing adverse drug effects and consequences related to their use. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Use of Psychotropic Medication occurred on 03/12/25. This policy, dated February 2023, stated, . PRN orders for all psychotropic drugs shall be used . for a limited duration (i.e. 14 days) . If the . prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to extend beyond 14 days, he or she shall document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. Review of Resident #12's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A current physician's order included…
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 before2025-03-12 · 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, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #3 and #26) observed in enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). Failure to practice infection control standards related to EBP, catheter care, 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 03/12/25. This policy, dated April 2024, stated, . an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities. PPE [personal protective equipment] for enhanced barrier precautions is only necessary when performing high-contact care activities . High-contact resident care activities include: . dressing . providing hygiene . assisting with toileting . device care or use . Review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene occurred on 03/12/25. This policy, revised…
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 · D2024-02-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to investigate and report to the State Survey Agency (SSA) potential incidents of abuse/neglect for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #26) who experienced a major injury. Failure to investigate and report allegations of potential abuse/neglect to the SSA places all residents at risk of potential abuse/neglect. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation occurred on 01/31/24. This policy, dated January 2021, stated, . It is the policy of this facility to report all allegations of abuse/neglect/exploitation . including injuries of unknown sources . immediately to . appropriate agencies in accordance with state and federal regulations within prescribed timeframes. Immediately: Means as soon as possible . not later than 2 hours after . events that cause the allegation involve or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse . Injuries of unknown source: . injury was not observed…
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 before2024-02-05 · 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 1 of 11 sampled residents (Resident #5). Failure to accurately complete the MDS does not allow each resident's assessment to reflect their current status/needs and may affect the 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, Section K: Swallowing/Nutritional Status, pages K-3 through K-6, stated, . K0200A: Weight: 1. Base weight on the most recent measure in the last 30 days. K0300: Weight Loss . Coding Instructions . Code 1, yes on physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen: if the resident has experienced a weight loss of 5% or more in the past 30 days or 10% or more in the last 180 days, and the weight loss was planned and pursuant to a physician's order.…
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 · D2024-02-05 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of the North Dakota Provider Manual for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) and Level of Care Screening Procedures for Long Term Care Services, and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a status change assessment for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #13) reviewed for PASRR. Failure to complete a change in status assessment with a newly diagnosed mental illness and/or change in treatment may result in the delivery of care and services that are inconsistent with residents' needs. Findings include: The North Dakota PASRR Provider Manual, revised December 2020, page 13, states, . Change in Status Process: Whenever the following events occur, nursing facility staff must contact [the contracted agency] to update the Level I screen for determination of whether a first time or updated Level II evaluation must be performed. These situations suggest that a significant change in status has occurred: . If an individual with MI, ID, and/or RC [mental illness, intellectual disability, and conditions related to intellectual disability…
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 · D2024-02-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate assistance and assistive devices for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #3) observed during a transfer. Failure to use a gait belt and provide appropriate assistance during a pivot transfer places the resident and staff at risk for accidents, falls, and/or injuries. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Transfer/Gait Belts occurred on 01/31/24. This policy, dated November 2015, stated, . Staff transferring residents will properly apply and use a transfer/gait belt . transferring residents whose . balance is impaired . strength is decreased . Review of Resident #26's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The current care plan stated, . Limited assist/one-person physical assist. Resident transfers with assistance but is unable to walk. Can stand well enough to transfer. A progress note, dated 11/28/2023 at 4:14 p.m., stated, . one person stand by assist for transfers with gait belt. Observation on 01/29/24 04:02 p.m.…
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 · D2024-02-05 · 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 controlled medications for 1 of 1 medication cart. Failure to store medications securely may result in unauthorized access to medications. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage occurred on 02/01/24. This policy dated January 2020, stated, . Schedule II drugs and back up stock for III, IV, and V medications are stored under double-lock and key. This policy failed to address the requirement of controlled medications II-V needing to be locked in a permanently affixed compartment within the medication cart. Observation of the medication cart with a nurse (#2) occurred on 02/01/24 at 11:10 a.m. and showed a bottle of gabapentin (nerve pain medication) for Resident #13 stored with non-controlled medications and not double locked. The nurse (#2) stated, I was unaware this needed to be locked. During an interview on the morning of 02/01/24, an administrative nurse (#1) confirmed staff failed to double lock the controlled…
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 before2024-02-05 · 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 7 sampled residents (Resident #26) observed during toileting cares. Failure to follow infection control standards has the potential to transmit infections to residents, staff, and visitors. Findings include: Review of the policy/procedure titled Hand Hygiene occurred on 02/01/24. This policy, dated January 2022, stated, . Hand hygiene is indicated and will be performed. After assistance with personal body functions . Observation on 01/29/24 at 2:49 p.m. showed two certified nurse aides (CNAs) (#5 and #6) transferred Resident #26 onto the toilet. The CNA (#5) donned gloves and performed perineal cares. Without removing the soiled gloves, the CNA (#5) transferred Resident #26 to bed, adjusted the resident in bed, moved the resident's bedside table, closed an open bag of chips, moved the resident's water, and adjusted the resident's call light pendant. The CNA (#5) then removed the soiled gloves and performed hand hygiene. The CNA (#5) failed to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-03-12 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure posting of staff information on 2 of 3 days of survey (March 10-11, 2025). Failure to post staffing data does not allow residents and visitors information related to the number of licensed and unlicensed staff on duty each shift. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Nurse Staffing Posting Information dated 10/01/24, stated, . The Nurse Staffing Sheet will be posted on a daily basis . The facility will post the Nurse Staffing Sheet at the beginning of each shift. Nursing schedules and posting information will be maintained in the Human Resources Department for review. Observation on all days of survey showed a Nurse Staffing Posting Information form posted on a board in the hall by the residents' dining room. Review of the staffing form on 03/10/25 and 03/11/25 showed the staffing form dated 03/07/25. The facility failed to post a current staffing form for March 10th and 11th, 2025. Review of previous staff posting identified staff failed to complete the staffing…
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
$11,408 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $11,408 — penalty dated 2025-02-11
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRYANT, HOLLY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/21/2023 |
| ERAAS, JAMIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/27/2023 |
| BECKER, JEREMY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/18/2019 |
| BOOTH, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/20/2013 |
| GERMUNDSON, NATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/16/2020 |
| JOYCE, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/20/2023 |
| KUEHN, KRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/20/2023 |
| LENZEN, WENDY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/20/2023 |
| ODEGAARD, BRODIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/20/2017 |
| OLSON, LEE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/20/2017 |
| WISTHOFF, SETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/18/2019 |
| TIOGA MEDICAL CENTER | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/1978 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 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 355034. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-03, 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.