McKenzie County Healthcare Systems Long Term Care
709 4th Avenue NE, Watford City, ND 58854 · Non profit - Corporation · 42 certified beds · (701) 444-2331 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 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 | 14.8% | 19.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 1.6% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 2.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 4.4% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.2% | 5.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.1% | 17.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.4% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.9% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.2% | 24.9% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.5% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.64 | 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.
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 | 11.6%CMS range 8.1–17.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.52 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 42 beds and averages 38.2 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 4 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 4.27 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.17 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.69 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.45 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.27 to 0.90 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-08-23 · 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 record review, review of the facility reported incident investigation, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an environment free of hazards for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #3) injured while consuming a hot beverage. Failure to provide assess and provide the appropriate cup for hot beverages may have contributed to Resident #3's injuries This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective action the facility implemented immediately following the incident. Finding include: Review of Resident #3's medial record occurred on 08/23/23 and identified the following: - 07/29/2023 16:11 [4:11 p.m.] General Note: Resident was served Tea upon her request. CNA [certified nurse aide] cooled [hot] water with cold water before serving. Resident picked it up off table when it slipped from her hands and spied [sic] causing burns to bilateral [both] knee areas. - 07/29/2023 20:37 [8:37 p.m.] . Skin Issue: Burns (second or third degree). Skin Issue Location: underside3 [sic] of left knee Length:3cm [centimeter] [sic] Width (cm): 3cm…
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 before2025-07-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 4 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #1, #7, #15, and #28) observed during cares. Failure to practice infection control standards related to hand hygiene and enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene occurred on 07/24/25. This policy, dated June 2023, stated, . The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene. If your task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, and immediately after removing gloves. Review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions occurred on 07/24/25. This policy, dated April 2024, stated, . infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organism that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities. HAND HYGIENE - Observation on 07/21/25 at 4:15 p.m. showed an enhanced…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 assess a resident for self-administration of medications for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #5) observed with medications at the bedside. Failure to evaluate the ability for residents to safely self-administer medications may result in medication errors and/or harm to the resident.Findings include: Review of the facility policy Self Administration of Medication occurred on 07/24/24. This policy, dated June 2024, stated, .resident may only self-administer medications after the facility's interdisciplinary team has determined which medications may be self-administered safely. Observations on all days of survey showed an unlabeled bottle of Calm Forte (sleep aid) on the top of a bedside shelf in Resident #5's room. Review of Resident #5's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The record lacked an assessment and a physician's order for Resident #5 to self-administer medications and lacked orders for the medication Calm Forte. During an interview on 07/23/25 at 10:13…
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 · D2025-07-24 · 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
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 1 sampled resident (Resident #22) who received an as needed (PRN) psychotropic. Failure to limit PRN psychotropic use to 14 days unless reevaluated by a practitioner placed the resident at risk of receiving unnecessary medications, experiencing adverse drug effects, and possible chemical restraint. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Use of Psychotropic Medications occurred on 07/24/25. This policy, dated 06/27/24, stated, . A psychotropic drug is any drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior. Psychotropic drugs include, but are not limited to the following categories: . anti-anxiety . PRN orders for all psychotropic drugs shall be used only when the medication is necessary . and for a limited duration . If the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, he or she shall…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #15) receiving oxygen by nasal cannula. Failure to obtain a physician's order to administer oxygen may result in complications and compromise the residents' respiratory status.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Oxygene [sic] Administration occurred on 07/24/25. This policy, dated 06/01/19, stated, . Procedure: . Check physician's orders for liter flow and method of administration . Observation on all days of survey showed Resident #15 with continuous oxygen (O2) in place via a nasal cannula at 2 liters (L). Review of Resident #15's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current care plan stated, . I have a need for oxygen therapy R/T [related to] Respiratory illness, COPD . OXYGEN SETTINGS: I have O2 via nasal prongs/mask @ [at] 2-3L to keep sats [saturations] >92%…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-20 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the resident or the resident's representative a written notice of transfer for 5 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #3, #5, #10, #23, and #28) transferred to the hospital. Failure to provide a written copy of the transfer notice does not allow the resident and/or their representative to make an informed decision regarding their rights. Findings include: Review of Resident #3, #5, #10, #23, and #28's medical records occurred on all days of survey and identified the following hospital transfers: * Resident #3: 10/27/23 and 05/07/24. * Resident #5: 08/04/23. * Resident #10: 04/05/24 and 04/26/24. * Resident #23: 05/03/24. * Resident #28: 04/29/24. The above residents' medical records lacked evidence the facility provided the resident and/or representative with a written transfer notice. During an interview on 06/18/24 at 2:13 p.m., an administrative staff member (#1) stated the facility does not have a Hospital Transfer policy. During an interview on 06/18/24 at 5:15 p.m., an administrative staff member (#1)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-20 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 provide a bed hold notice upon transfer to the hospital for 5 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #3, #5, #10, #23, and #28) transferred to the hospital. Failure to provide a bed hold notice does not allow residents or their legal representatives to make informed choices regarding their readmission rights. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Bed Hold occurred on 06/19/24. This policy, dated 04/17/24, stated, It is the policy of this facility to provide written information to the resident and/or the resident representative regarding bed hold policies prior to transferring a resident to the hospital . Review of Resident #3, #5, #10, #23, and #28's medical records occurred on all days of survey and identified the following hospital transfers: * Resident #3: 10/27/23 and 05/07/24. * Resident #5: 08/04/23. * Resident #10: 04/05/24 and 04/26/24. * Resident #23: 05/03/24. * Resident #28: 04/29/24. The above residents' medical records lacked evidence the facility provided 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 before2024-06-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan for 1 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #3). Failure to review and revise the care plan limited staff's ability to communicate needs, ensure continuity of care, and may negatively impact the care provided to the resident. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans occurred on 06/19/24. This policy, dated 11/08/22, stated, . The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS [Minimum Data Set] assessment. Review of Resident #3's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A progress note, dated 04/07/24 at 11:04 a m., stated, Foley Cath [catheter] removed at 5 a.m. A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], identified no Foley catheter, maximum assist required for transfers, not toileted, and no ambulation attempted. The current care plan identified Resident #3 had a Foley catheter…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-19 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 dietary manager (#1) obtained the proper qualifications to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. Failure to ensure staff have the qualifications to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services has the potential to result in foodborne illness to residents, staff, and visitors. Findings include: During an interview on 07/17/23 at 12:00 p.m., the dietary manager (#1) confirmed he has not completed the necessary courses required for the director of food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure the dietary manager (#1) completed the required education for a certified dietary manager, certified food service manager, or a national certification for food service management and safety from a national certifying body
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-07-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of facility policy, review of a professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices necessary to prevent accidents for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #12 and #18) and 2 supplemental residents (#4 and #21) observed during a gait belt transfer. Failure to properly use a gait belt during transfers placed the resident at risk of accidents and injury. Findings include: Review of the facility policy Use of Gait Belt occurred on 07/19/23. This policy, dated October 2022, stated, . To prevent accidents . use gait belts with residents that cannot independently ambulate or transfer for the purpose of safety . [NAME], [NAME], and Frandsen, Kozier & Erb's Fundamentals of Nursing: Concepts, Process, and Practice, 10th edition, Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey, page 1054, stated, . If the client is a low safety risk . use a gait/transfer belt for standby assist as needed and assistive devices as needed . and 1-2 caregivers.…
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 before2023-07-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #12, #13 and #32) and 1 supplemental resident (#30) with orders for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), and 2 of 12 sampled residents (Residents #1 and #15) observed during cares. Failure to practice infection control standards related to use of personal protective equipment (PPE) 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 07/19/23. This undated policy, stated, . Enhanced barrier precautions refer to the use of gown and gloves for use during high-contact resident care activities for residents known to be colonized or infected with a MDRO [multi drug resistant organism] as well as those at risk of MDRO acquisition (e.g., residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices). Clear signage will be posted outside of the resident room indicating the type of precautions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-19 · 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, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to review and revise comprehensive care plans to reflect the current status for 1 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #32). Failure to review and revise the care plan limited staffs' ability to communicate needs and ensure continuity of care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plan Revisions occurred on 07/19/23. This policy, dated September 2022, stated, . the comprehensive care plan will be reviewed, and revised as necessary . the care plan will be updated with new or modified interventions . - Review of Resident #32's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A Physician's order, dated 06/22/23, stated, . foley catheter required for obstructive uropathy due to urinary retention. and included an order for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (per CDC [centers for disease control and prevention]) related to medical device (indwelling catheter). The current care plan lacked goals and interventions related to Resident #32's indwelling catheter and EBP.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCKENZIE COUNTY HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2004 |
| BROWN, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| BULZOMI, MONTY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| CEYNAR, VIRGINIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| DODGE, JAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| FAULKNER, CHERYL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/23/2025 |
| HEEN, KRISTA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/30/2024 |
| MERKLE, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2023 |
| QUALE, RANDY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/27/2021 |
| VOLL, JUSTIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| WISNESS, CHASE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| EDIS, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/23/2025 |
| LOUGHMAN, AMANDA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/09/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 355072. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-24, 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.