Good Samaritan Society - Colonial Villa
719 North Brown Street, Alma, NE 68920 · Non profit - Corporation · 53 certified beds · (308) 928-2128 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 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 | 13.7% | 19.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.4% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 4.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.7% | 18.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.8% | 19.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 4.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.8% | 25.9% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.0% | 20.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.5% | 2.0% | 1.4% | 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: this home’s payroll records show 0.08 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% 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 | 10.4%CMS range 6.8–15.9 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 53 beds and averages 34.3 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 19 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.15 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.86 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.35 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-16 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 1-005.06(D)Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.18(B) Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that hand hygiene (hand washing using soap and water or an alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) to remove germs for reducing the risk of transmitting infection among patients and health care personnel) occurred between residents while administering medications to prevent the potential for cross-contamination. This affected 3 of 4 residents sampled (Residents 19, 2, and 8); the facility failed to ensure that staff performed hand hygiene as required before and after glove use during the provision of resident cares and failed to ensure that staff performed hand washing for the required length of time during resident cares. This affected 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 21). The facility census was 32. Findings are:A. Record Review of the Medication Administration policy dated 4/8/2025 revealed one purpose to be to provide direction regarding medication aides. Furthermore, it revealed that medications are administered to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-16 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-00 6.09(7)Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that a recapitulation (A concise summary of the resident's stay and course of treatment in the facility) was completed as required for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 36); and the facility failed to notify the state ombudsman (a state appointed advocate for residents of nursing homes) of resident discharge for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 36). The facility census was 32. Findings are: A.Record review of the facility policy titled Discharge and Transfer dated 3/28/25 revealed that when a transfer or discharge occurs the location (facility) must ensure that the transfer or discharge is documented in the medical record. With a transfer or discharge the location must send a copy of the facility or other state required form to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The section titled Home revealed that the charge nurse or other designated individual will complete…
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 · D2024-07-23 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.09(H)(iv)(5) Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to follow physician orders on bowel protocols for 1 (Resident 31) of 1 sampled residents. Facility census was 32. Findings are: A record review of the Care Plan (a written interdisciplinary comprehensive plan detailing how to provide quality care for a resident) dated 04/05/2024 revealed: -The resident has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired though process related to cognitive decline evidenced by a diagnosis of dementia (a term for several diseases that affect memory, thinking, and the ability to perform daily activities.). -The resident has an activity of daily living (ADLs) (basic everyday tasks including bathing, eating, dressing, getting in and out of bed, and toileting) self-care performance deficit related to confusion evidenced by a diagnosis of dementia. A record review of the assessment Functional abilities dated 07/08/24 revealed the following: -Resident 31 is independent/supervision/touch assistance for all mobility activities. -Resident 31 is a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-23 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12(A)(vi) Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the monthly medication drug reviews were received and reviewed by facility staff to identify priority irregularities which needed addressed. This affected 1 resident (Resident 6) of 3 sampled residents. The facility census was 32. Findings are: A record review of the facility policy titled Medication Drug Regimen Review (MRR) dated 2/28/2024 stated the review is done to prevent medication errors that could cause harm to a resident, result in resident hospitalization, and to identify potential adverse events. The Pharmacist will complete a written report noting any drug irregularities or issues of concern for each resident reviewed, complete the MRR Summary, and give a copy to the Director of Nursing (DON) upon completion of the monthly MRR. These reports must be shared with the Medical director and the attending physician and the reports must be acted upon. If the consulting pharmacist detects a potential or actual problem that requires urgent action to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-23 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.09(H) Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement AIMS monitoring for 1 (Resident 21) of 5 sampled residents, to identify potential adverse effects of antipsychotic medications. Facility census was 32. Findings are: A review of a facility policy dated 12/06/2023 titled Psychotropic Medications revealed: -The resident will be free from any chemical restraint imposed for the purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. -Each resident's drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs. An Unnecessary drug is any drug when used without adequate monitoring and without adequate indications for use. -Before administration of non-emergency psychotropic medications, the following must be completed: If the physician prescribes an antipsychotic for the resident, a registered nurse must complete the Initial Antipsychotic Medication Assessment and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale in the electronic medical record (EMR) (digital collection of medical information about a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-23 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12D(vi) Based on observation, record review, and interviews; the facility failed to ensure that resident medications had labels that matched the physician's order for 2 (Residents 20 and 15) of 5 residents observed. This had the potential for risk to resident safety related to medication administration. The facility census was 32. Findings are: A. A record review of the facility policy titled Medication: Administration Including Scheduling and Medication Aides dated 3/29/23 revealed the purpose of the policy was to administer medications correctly and in a timely manner. The section titled Procedure revealed the instruction to review the Medication Administration Record (MAR, a legal record of the medications administered to a patient at a facility by a health care professional) for medications due. Follow the Six Rights: Right medication, right dose, right resident, right route, right time, and right documentation. Perform three checks: Read the label on the medication container and compare with the MAR when removing the container from 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 · Ecited before2023-06-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference 175 NAC 12-006.17D Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was completed per expectation during a dressing change which affected 1 of 2 sampled residents, Resident 34, before starting medication administration which affected 1 of 3 residents observed, Resident 25; and during the distribution of water which affected 8 of 9 residents, Resident 15, 14, 27, 23, 21, 18, 1, and 8. The facility identified a census of 35 at the time of survey. Findings are: A. Observation of unit 3 on 6/14/23 from 9:47 AM to 9:53 AM revealed MA-A (Medication Aide) pushed a 3 tiered cart that had pitchers of ice water on the top shelf from the kitchen down the hall. MA-A had disposable gloves on. MA-A took a clean pitcher off the cart and took it into Resident 13's room. MA-A sat the new pitcher of ice water down and picked up the pitcher that was sitting on the stand and picked it up by the handle and brought it out and put it on the 2nd shelf of the cart. MA-A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.05(3) Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident 8's POA (Power of attorney who can make decisions for Resident if Resident is unable)/or their personal representative was informed of the risks and alternate treatment available before initiating antipsychotic medication (medication used to treat psychotic/behavior disorders). This affected 1 of 5 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 35 at the time of survey. Findings are: A. Record review of Resident 8's admission record revealed that the resident was admitted to facility on 11/01/2018 with diagnoses of impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought process. Record review of Resident 8's admission Record dated 6/21/2023 revealed that Resident 8 had a POA for healthcare. Record Review of Resident 8's Medication Orders from Primary Care Physician revealed that Resident 8 was prescribed Seroquel 50 mg (an antipsychotic, medication used to treat behavior disorders, with potential adverse side effects), on 10/19/22. Record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · 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 Licensure Reference 175 NAC 12-006.05-4 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility residents had the opportunity to formulate an advance directive. This affected 2 of 3 residents sampled, Residents 34 and 12. Census was 35. Findings are: A. Record review of admission Record dated June 15,2023 revealed that Resident 12 was admitted on [DATE]. Record review of the medical record revealed the absence of any documentation of an advance directive for Resident 12. Record review of the undated care plan revealed that there was no code status or advance directive care planned for Resident 12. B. Record review of admission Record dated June 15,2023 revealed that Resident 34 was admitted on [DATE]. Record review of the medical record revealed the absence of any documentation of an advance directive for Resident 34. Record review of the undated care plan revealed that there was no code status care or advance directive planned for Resident 34. Interview with the SSD (Social Services…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY — 92 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
The other 91 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 91; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SANFORD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2019 |
| THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2019 |
| BROWN, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| DYKHOUSE, DANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| ENGBRECHT, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GASSEN, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GULSVIG, NEIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| HERSETH SANDLIN, STEPHANIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| LUNDEEN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| MCCAUSLAND, MAUREEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MOLBERT, LAURIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| NORTH, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| SCHIEFFER, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SHULKIN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| TEIKEN, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| WENZEL, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FLUIT, JOEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/27/2026 |
| MIDDLETON, AIMEE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/27/2022 |
| OLSON, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/08/2024 |
| SCHEMA, NATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| JOHNSON, TAMARA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/30/2017 |
| MANNIS, ANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2024 |
| MORRISON, TONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| DTN STAFFING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2024 |
| FOCUSONE SOLUTIONS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/04/2024 |
| GRAPE TREE MEDICAL STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/13/2018 |
| OMNICARE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 34 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $645K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NE
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 Nebraska 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 285185. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-16, 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.