Memorial Community Care
1423 Seventh Street, Aurora, NE 68818 · Non profit - Corporation · 48 certified beds · (402) 694-8230 Medicaid only — no Medicare
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)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- 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 (F0606), cited Sep 2023
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) | 5 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 held steady at 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 | 6.0% | 19.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.1% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.8% | 4.3% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 5.8% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.7% | 18.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.2% | 19.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.0% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.0% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 33.0% | 20.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.12 | 1.81 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.61 | 1.92 | 1.80 | better |
* 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 0.03 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 1% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 48 beds and averages 33.0 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 15 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 4.68 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.36 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 3.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.97 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-02-02 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.07(A) The facility failed to ensure the required members of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI - a data-driven, proactive approach to Quality Assurance {meeting standards} and performance improvement {enhancing processes} to improve care, safety, and quality of life) Committee attended the quarterly meetings. This had the potential to affect 33 residents that resided in the facility at the time of the survey. The facility census was 33. Findings are: A record review of the facility's undated QAPI policy revealed the committee members included the Medical Director (Physician Review Committee). A record review of the facility QAPI meeting minutes dated 10.14.2025, 11.11.2026, 12.9.2025, and 1.13.2026 revealed the Medical Director was not in attendance at the meetings. During an interview on 2.2.2026 at 9:00 AM, the Administrator (ADM) confirmed the facility's Medical Director does not attend the QAPI' quarterly committee meetings, and only reviews the nursing facility's QAPI minutes.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-09-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11(E) Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the water temperatures of the facility dishwasher reached the required temperature while washing and rinsing dishes and utensils. This affected all residents in the facility who received food and meals from the facility kitchen. The reported census was 37. Findings are: Record Review on 9/18/2024 of the undated [NAME] automatic dishwashing machine manufacturer panel decal revealed that the dishwasher was a high temperature machine which required a minimum water temperature during the wash cycle of 160 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and the rinse cycle of 180F degrees to activate the chemicals used for sanitization. This information was located on the upper right-hand corner of the dishwashing machine. Observation in the kitchen of the [NAME] dishwashing machine while in use on 9/18/2024 at 8:45 AM revealed the water for the wash cycle reached a temperature of 148F degrees. The temperature…
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 · E2024-09-24 · tag F0552 — patternEnsure 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(D)(E) Based on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to inform the resident of medication changes made by the provider for 1 (Resident 14) of 1 sampled residents, and failed to re-evaluate residents or responsible parties choices for eye care needs for 1 (Resident 17) of 1 sampled residents. The facility census was 37. Findings are: A. Review of the facility supplied document labeled Resident Rights and dated 2016 revealed the following: -The resident has the right to be informed of and participate in their treatment including the right to be fully informed of their total health status. -The resident has the right to be informed in advance of the care to be furnished. -The resident has the right to be informed in advance of the risks and benefits of proposed care of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the option they prefer. Review of the facility supplied document labeled Facility Assessment and dated 08/02/2024 revealed under resident preferences the facility supports 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 · E2024-09-24 · 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, and interview; the facility failed to accurately code residents Minimum Data Set (MDS, a mandatory comprehensive assessment tool that measures the health status of nursing home residents and is used for care planning) for 3 (Resident 4, 14, and 17) of 4 sampled residents. The facility stated census was 37. Findings are: A. A review of an Admitting Record not dated revealed the facility admitted Resident 4 on 09/10/2019 with diagnoses that included anxiety (a mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), major depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with one's daily activities), and psychosis(a severe mental disorder that causes abnormal thinking and perceptions). A review of a document titled Nebraska Summary of Findings Preadmission Screening and resident Review (PASRR), (a screening program mandated by the federal Centers…
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 · D2024-09-24 · tag F0712 — isolatedEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were completed within the required time intervals for 2 (Resident 7, and 23) of 4 sampled residents. The facility census was 37. Findings are: A. Record review of the June 2024 Care Plan for Resident 7 revealed no in-person physician (or advanced practice professional) visits with Resident 7 between the dates of 12/04/2023 and 04/8/2024. This resulted in no physician or an advanced practice professional visit for a period of 126 days. Record review of a handwritten undated list of physician visitation dates presented by the Facility Administrator (FA) revealed a physician visited Resident 7 on 12/04/2023 and 4/8/2024. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/24/2024 at 4:35 PM revealed the resident was not seen by a physician for a period of 126 days. The DON revealed each facility resident is seen yearly by a physician for their individual health updates and physicals. The DON confirmed residents do not see a physician as mandated every 60 days. We didn't know about that regulation…
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 · Fcited before2023-09-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11E Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to dispose of food in a timeframe to prevent foodborne illness and cross contamination. This had the potential to affect 40 residents that ate food prepared in the facility kitchen. The facility census was 40. Findings are: An observation on 09/11/23 from 8:19 AM to 8:30 AM revealed the following during the initial kitchen tour: -a carton of heavy whipping cream opened on 8/7 -a container of classic egg salad opened on 8/27 -a container of labeled cinnamon roll frosting dated 5/11 An observation on 9/14/23 from 8:18 AM to 8:28 AM revealed the following during the final kitchen tour: -a carton of heavy whipping cream opened on 8/7 -a container of classic egg salad opened on 8/27 -a container of labeled cinnamon roll frosting dated 5/11 -a pitcher labeled strawberry kiwi juice dated 9/8 -a container labeled chicken broth dated 9/10 Review of the facility policy, Food Service Policies and Procedure: Infection Prevent, dated 9/28/15 revealed the following: -10. Food…
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 · D2023-09-14 · 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
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.04C3a(6) Based on record review and interview the facility failed to notify the physician of a significant weight loss for 1 (Resident 17) of 3 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 40. Findings are: Record review of the H&P dated 8/18/23 for Resident 17 revealed Resident 17's admitting diagnoses included Coronary Artery Disease (caused by plaque buildup in the wall of the arteries that supply blood to the heart) and Chronic Congestive Heart Failure (the heart works less efficiently than normal). Record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated September 2023 revealed no indication of Resident 17 being at risk for weight loss. Record review of the Medication Administration Record and the Treatment Administration Record, both dated September 2023, indicated no monitoring of edema had occurred. Record review of the documented weights for the last 6 months for Resident 17 revealed on 03/11/2023, Resident 17 weighed 327.8 lbs (pounds) and on 09/07/2023, Resident 17 weighed 284.6 lbs which is a -13.18 % Loss. Record…
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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 175 NAC 12-006.09D1b Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to assist 1 (Resident 2) of 1 sampled resident with meal intake within a time frame to ensure palatability and to prevent the potential for foodborne illness. The facility identified a census of 40. Findings are: Review of Resident 2's admitting record revealed that Resident 2 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. Review of Resident 2's comprehensive care plan (written instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care) revealed: -Nutrition: Eating Habits: Please offer and encourage me to drink plenty of fluids at and between meals. I am at an assist table to help improve my intakes. Review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities used to develop a resident's plan of care), dated 6/28/23, revealed: -Brief…
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 · D2023-09-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D2b Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure wound care was completed for 1 (Resident 38) of 1 sampled resident as ordered by the practitioner. The facility census was 40. Findings are: Record review of Resident 38's admitting record revealed that Resident 38 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of weakness and cellulitis (bacterial infection of the skin). Record review of Resident 38's initial 48-hour care plan, undated, revealed the following: -Medications/Treatments per Doctor's orders -Other care notes: significant edema- weeping on bilateral lower extremities (BLE), dressing changes Record review of Resident 38's treatment administration record (TAR) for September 2023 revealed the following orders: -Wound care to left second toe: wash with soap and water. Place Aquacel AG (AG-silver, dressing applied to wounds that are at risk for infection) on wound bed cover with bandaid on MWF (Monday, Wednesday, Friday)…
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 · C2023-09-14 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — widespreadNot hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.04A3d Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure pre-employment screening included APS/CPS (Adult Protective Services/Child Protective Services) checks of licensure for 2 of 3 newly hired staff prior to providing patient cares. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility identified a census of 40. Findings are: A record review of the employee files of NA's hired within the last 6 months revealed that NA-E's file did not contain a license check from APS/CPS which would indicate any adverse allegations against NA-E's license prior to providing direct patient cares. A record review of the employee files of NA's hired within the last 6 months revealed that NA-F's file did not contain a license check from APS/CPS which would indicate any adverse allegations against NA-F's license prior to providing direct patient cares. An interview on 9/13/23 at 3:15 PM with the Human Resource (HR) Director confirmed that the APS/CPS license checks were not completed for NA-E and NA-F and should have been. A record review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in NE
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 28E191. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-02, 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.