Westfield Quality Care of Aurora
1313 1st Street, Aurora, NE 68818 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 64 certified beds · (402) 694-2128 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (22) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $41,980 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-15)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 1 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 | 9.7% | 19.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.7% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.5% | 4.3% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 5.6% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.0% | 18.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 32.8% | 19.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.5% | 25.9% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.9% | 20.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.0% | 75.9% | 79.4% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.71 | 1.81 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.67 | 1.92 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
33.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
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 | 33.8%CMS range 20.1–46.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 7.6–15.9 | 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 | 8.4%CMS range 4.5–15.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 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
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
22 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-04-15 · 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 12-006.09 Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to complete control testing on the facility glucometers (a machine that is used to monitor blood sugar levels) each night in order to maintain accurate blood sugar readings for the administration of sliding scale insulins and to ensure the accuracy of all blood sugars being monitored in the facility. This affected 6 residents who received Sliding Scale Insulin. (Residents 8, 9, 17, 30, 31, and 34). The facility failed to ensure that thorough skin checks were implemented for 1 Resident (Resident 30), of 4 sampled Residents. The facility census was 53. Findings are: A. Record Review of the Medline Evencare Proview Users glucometer manual reviewed at the facility dated 2018 states the following: The purpose of the control solution testing is to validate that the EVENCARE ProView Meter is working properly with the test strips. You should perform a control solution test when: 1.) Using the meter for…
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 · E2026-03-04 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(H)Based on observations, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation for 3 of 3 resident to resident abuse incidents affecting Residents 3, 4, 6, 1, and 2; and failed to develop interventions to protect other residents from further adverse behaviors for 2 residents (Residents 6 and 1). The facility census was 54.Findings are:A.Record review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation dated June 2025 revealed that it is the facility policy to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse and neglect. An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation occur. Written procedures for investigations include:1- Identifying staff responsible for the investigation.2- Exercising caution in handling evidence.3-…
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 · F2025-04-07 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.04(H)(ii)(2) Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that it employed a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) (a CDM has completed education to be a nationally recognized expert in managing dietary operations and ensuring food safety) to oversee the facility food service. This affected all facility residents. The facility census was 50. Findings are: Record review of the facility Dietary Manager Job Description dated 2018 revealed that minimum requirements include one of the following: Certification as a Dietary Manager (Certified Dietary Manager) or Certification as a Food Service Manager. Major duties and responsibilities include maintaining a clean and sanitary environment; overseeing safe and timely meal preparation including the provision of meals and or supplements in accordance with resident's needs-preference-and care plan; monitoring regular and therapeutic diets including texture of foods and liquids to meet the specialized needs of residents. The employee acknowledgement on the job description was…
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 · F2025-04-07 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11(D) Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure that foods were held at the required temperatures during meal service to ensure meals were palatable and at an appetizing temperature; and the facility failed to ensure that pureed foods (a cooked food item that has been ground with a blender into a smooth, soft, pudding-like consistency for residents with difficulty chewing or swallowing) were prepared to maintain nutritive value for 1 of 1 residents (Resident 43). The facility census was 50. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility policy titled Food Temperatures dated 2021 revealed that the temperatures of all food items will be taken and properly recorded prior to service of each meal. All hot food items must be cooked to appropriate internal temperatures, held, and served at a temperature of at least 135 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Temperatures should be taken periodically to assure hot foods stay above 135F during the holding and plating process and until food leaves the service area. 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 · Fcited before2025-04-07 · 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 12-006.11(E) Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff performed hand washing to prevent the potential for cross contamination and food borne illness during food preparation and food service; the facility failed to maintain held foods within the required safe temperature range during meal service to prevent the potential for foodborne illness; the facility failed to perform daily testing of sanitizer chemical concentration to ensure sanitizer was at the required levels for use; and the facility failed to maintain dietary equipment and areas free of soiling and debris. This had the potential to affect all residents who resided within the facility. The facility census was 50. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility policy titled General Food Preparation and Handling dated 2021 revealed that food items will be prepared to conserve nutritive value and keep free of harmful organisms and substances. The kitchen surfaces and equipment will be cleaned and sanitized as appropriate. Bare hands…
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 before2025-04-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 Number 175 NAC 12-006.19(C) Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to properly handle clean and soiled linens throughout the building, this had the potential to affect all facility residents. The facility failed to [NAME] resident care equipment in a manner to prevent transfer of microorganisms for 2 of 3 sampled residents, Resident 7 and Resident 30, and failed to clean and disinfect glucometers between resident use for 2 of 3 sampled residents, Resident #0 and Resident #34. The facility census was 50. Findings are: A. An observation on 04/01/2025 at 12:45 PM, Housekeeper-J (HSK-J) was observed pulling a cart down the 200-hall, bumping into the fire door, pulling it closed. The cart was observed to be open, with its flap to cover one side of the cart pulled up and over, exposing the full cart of clean linens. HSK-J continues to pull the cart to the SPA room, where the linens were placed into the room for resident use. HSK-J was observed to not use hand…
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 · E2025-04-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 1-009.01(B) Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.19 Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were kept free of soiling and debris for 19 of 24 residents (Residents 38, 3, 2, 12, 47, 37, 28, 22,16, 23, 35, 43, 44, 21, 15, 34, 49, 26, and 29); and the facility failed to maintain facility toilet seats in a cleanable condition for 3 of 24 residents (Residents 47, 34, and 49). The facility census was 50. Findings are: A. Record review of the undated facility admission Packet revealed that the facility agrees to provide the following service for the prevailing basic monthly rate: Furnish room, meals, linens, laundry service, nursing care, housekeeping and maintenance, restorative care, assistance with social service needs and recreational activity programs. Record review of the facility Resident Rights dated 2012 revealed that the nursing facility must care for residents in a manner and in an environment that promotes…
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 · E2025-04-07 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 12-006.10(D) Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to have a medication error rate of 5% or less. This affected 4 (Resident 9, 45, 48, and 49) of 7 sampled residents. The facility census was 50. Findings are: A record review of a facility policy titled Medication Administration and dated 04/2025 revealed to administer medications with in 60 minutes prior to or after the scheduled time and ensure that the six rights of medication administration are followed including the right time. A. A record review of a Medication Administration Record dated 04/02/2025 revealed Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hypothyroidism (a deficiency of thyroid hormone). The resident had an order to receive Levothyroxin (thyroid hormone supplement) tablet 25 micrograms once daily with directions to administer the medication 30 minutes prior to other medications and or eating and Levothyroxin (thyroid hormone supplement) tablet 200…
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 · E2025-04-07 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.11(A)(i) Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure that facility menus were followed to provide the required food portions to meet resident nutritional needs for 14 of 15 residents observed (Residents 49, 44, 32,16, 40, 19, 1, 22, 47, 8, 15, 39, 13, and 6). The facility census was 50. Findings are: Record review of the facility policy titled Open Style Dining dated 3/2/21 revealed that individuals will be provided choices of what to eat, when to eat, and who to dine with. The policy revealed that nursing and/or food and nutrition services staff will offer food and beverage choices to the individual at the point of service and report an individual's food and beverage choices to the staff members responsible for serving the food. Food and nutrition services staff will serve food and beverage choices made with consideration given to any dietary restrictions and/or texture modifications. The director of food and nutrition services (Dietary Manager) will observe the meals served for preferences, portion…
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 · D2025-04-07 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(S) Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to promote or maintain dignity for 1 (Resident 37) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 50. Findings are: A record review of the facility supplied admission packet revealed a document labeled Nursing Facility Resident Rights dated 2012. Review of this document revealed the resident has the right to be cared for in a manner and environment that maintains or enhances a resident's dignity. A record review of a facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation dated 09/13/2022 revealed it is the policy of the facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident. A record review of an admission Record dated 04/01/2025 indicated that the facility admitted Resident 37 on 01/24/2024 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (a degenerative brain disease of unknown cause that usually starts in late middle age or in old age, that results in progressive memory loss, impaired thinking, disorientation, and changes in personality and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-07 · 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(D) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to inform and or educate the resident and or their representative in advance of the risks or possible side effects of the use of psychotropic medication for 2 (Resident 35 and Resident 49) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 50. Findings are: A record review of a facility policy titled Use of Psychotropic Medication (a medication that affects the brain and central nervous system to alter mood, behavior, thoughts, and perception) dated 04/2024 revealed Residents and or representatives shall be educated on the risks and benefits of psychotropic drug use. A. A record review of an admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident 35 on 12/21/2023 with diagnoses of neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies (a degenerative brain disorder) and anxiety disorder (an abnormal and overwhelming sense of apprehension and fear often marked by physical signs, by doubt concerning the reality and nature of the threat, and by self-doubt about one's capacity to cope with it). 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.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12(E) Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure an insulin pen was labeled for 1 (Resident 34) of 4 sampled residents. The facility census was 50. Findings are: A. A record review of a facility policy titled Insulin Pen and dated 04/2025 revealed that insulin pens must be clearly labeled with the resident name, physician name, date dispensed, type of insulin, amount to be given, frequency, and date opened. A record review of an admission Record revealed that the facility admitted Resident 34 on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Diabetes (a common form of diabetes mellitus that develops especially in adults and most often in obese individuals and that is characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from impaired insulin utilization coupled with the body's inability to compensate with increased insulin production). A record review of a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used to determine…
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 · F2025-04-07 · tag F0844 — widespreadFollow rules about disclosure of ownership requirements and tell the state agency about changes in ownership and/or administrative personnel.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.01(g)(h) Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to notify the Department in writing within 5 working days of vacancy and filling of the Administrator position. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. The facility census was 50. Findings Are: The Facility Administrator (FA) was interviewed on 04/07/2025 at 2:45 PM. The interview with the FA revealed that the Business Office Manager (BOM) was the provisional administrator prior to their tenure which began on 02/14/2025. The BOM was interviewed on 04/07/2025 at 2:49 PM revealing that they were the Provisional Administrator prior to the current Administrator and their term ended on 02/14/2025. The BOD revealed that their tenure began on 01/28/2025, however notified the Department earlier than that date, by submitting a Change of Notification Form to the Department. Records revealed that the Change of Notification Form sent via email to the Department was date stamped as being sent on 01/24/2025 requesting a change of Administrator from one with a service end…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-04-15 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — widespreadHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.05(19) Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure residents could access their personal resident trust funds on weekends. This affected 46 of 53 residents. With the facility stated census of 53. Findings are: In an interview with Resident 30 on 04/08/2024 at 11:36 AM, Resident 30 revealed [gender] was unable to access resident trust funds on the weekend. In an interview on 04/10/2024 at 12:58 PM with Business Office Manager (BOM), confirmed that residents do not have access to resident trust account funds on the weekends, Saturday's, and Sunday's. BOM revealed [gender] was unaware that residents should have access to their funds on the weekends. BOM further revealed there was no policy or procedure in place for residents to access their funds on the weekends.
- Potential for harm · F2024-04-15 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.07C Based on record review and staff interviews; the facility Quality Assessment Performance Improvement plan (QAPI) failed to identify ongoing issues relevant to F567, F645, F684, F865 and F880 and Emergency Preparedness (EP) regulation relevant to E-0004, E-0006, E0015, E0024, E0036. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who reside in the facility. The facility staff identified a census of 92. Findings are: Review of the facility's policy dated 3/2023, titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) revealed, that it is the policy of the facility to develop, implement, and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data driven QAPI program that focuses on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life and addresses all the care and unique services the facility provides. It is the responsibility of the Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee (QAA) to design the QAPI program. The QAPI plan will address the following: - Design and scope of the facility's QAPI program and QAA Committee…
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 before2024-04-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 12-006.17D Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a water Legionella management program in the facility. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility, and failed to perform indwelling catheter (tube placed into the bladder to drain urine)care in a manner that reduced the risk of infection for 2 residents, (Resident #27 and Resident #21), of 4 sampled residents. The facility stated census was 53. Findings are: A. Review of a facility policy titled Water Management Program dated 03/19/2024, indicated A water management team has been established to develop and implement the facility's water management program. The Maintenance Director maintains documentation that describes the facility's water system. A copy is kept in the water management program binder. A risk assessment will be conducted by the water management team annually to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens could grow and spread in the facility's water system. Review of 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 · D2024-04-15 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), (a screening program mandated by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to ensure that nursing home applicants and residents with mental illness and intellectual/developmental disabilities are appropriately placed and receive necessary services to meet their needs) was completed prior to admission to the facility and reflected the residents mental illness for 1 resident, (Resident 34), of 4 sampled residents. The facility census was 53. Findings: Review of a facility policy titled Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR Program dated 01/2024 indicated that all applicants to the facility will be screened for serious mental disorders, (which are disorders that affect mood, thinking, and behavior), upon admission and a comprehensive evaluation by the appropriate state-designated authority to determine whether the individual has a mental disorder, intellectual disorder (which are disorders that limit 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 · Fcited before2023-04-11 · 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 12-006.11C LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.11E Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to A) ensure food was dated upon opening, B) failed to ensure dishwasher temperatures were maintained to ensure the sanitization of utensils to prevent the potential for food borne illness for 55 of 55 residents receiving food from the kitchen and C) failed to serve food and fluids in a manner to prevent cross contamination. This practice had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 55. Findings Are: A. Observation of the kitchen on 04/05/23 at 08:30 AM revealed 1 stack of 3 boxes and another stack of 2 boxes on the floor. In the freezer, observation revealed; -3 bags of pasta noodles opened and undated and not in a sealed container, -1 bag of instant mashed potatoes opened and undated and not in a sealed container, -1 bag of cheese sauce mix opened and undated and not in a sealed container, -1 bag of brown gravy mix opened and undated and not in a sealed container, -a large Tupperware container…
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 · F2023-04-11 · tag F0885 — failed to notify residents/families about COVID-19 — widespreadReport COVID19 data to residents and families.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to inform residents, families and/or representatives of confirmed Covid-19 cases within the facility. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 55. Findings Are: An interview on 04/05/23 at 12:58 PM revealed Resident 52's representative had not been notified of the facility's Covid-19 status since admission on [DATE]. An interview on 4/6/23 at 11:30 AM with the facility Administrator revealed that only the families/representatives of Covid-19 positive residents were updated of the facility's Covid-19 status. An interview with Resident 47's spouse, on 4/5/23 at 11:00 AM confirmed the resident's spouse had not been notified of any of the COVID 19 outbreaks. A review of the facility's undated testing logs and of positive residents and staff revealed positive staff and residents on the following dates: -1/13/23, 3 staff and 2 residents; -3/3/23, 1 staff and 1 resident; -3/17/23, 1 staff and 1 resident; -3/24/23, 1 staff. An…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-11 · 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 12-006.4C3a(6) Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician and Resident 52's representative of a significant weight loss for Resident 52. This affected 1 of 1 residents sampled (Resident 52). The facility identified a census of 55. Findings Are: A record review of the weights documented from 1/1/23 through 4/4/23 for Resident 52 revealed the following weights: -4/4/2023 1:55PM, 144.0 Lbs (pounds); -4/4/2023 1:52PM, 144.0 Lbs -3/31/2023 1:35PM, 143.5 Lbs -3/31/2023 1:26PM, 143.5 Lbs -3/28/2023 1:41PM, 147.0 Lbs -3/28/2023 1:37PM, 147.0 Lbs -3/9/2023 1:46PM, 152.5 Lbs -3/9/2023 1:34PM, 152.5 Lbs -3/7/2023 3:04PM, 153.5 Lbs -2/20/2023 1:59PM, 150.0 Lbs -2/13/2023 12:38PM, 149.0 Lbs -2/9/2023 1:59PM, 149.0 Lbs -2/6/2023 12:46PM, 148.5 Lbs -2/6/2023 12:42PM, 148.5 Lbs -2/3/2023 1:59PM, 151.0 Lbs -1/30/2023 1:44PM, 155.5 Lbs -1/26/2023 1:12PM, 154.0 Lbs -1/15/2023 1:57PM, 153.0 Lbs -1/15/2023 1:54PM, 153.0 Lbs -1/9/2023 3:50PM, 154.5 Lbs -1/4/2023 12:09PM, 151.5 Lbs -1/1/2023 1:59PM, 152.0 Lbs -On 03/07/2023,…
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 · D2023-04-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(8) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report abuse to the state agency within 2 hours of the allegation for 1 (Resident 46) of 5 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 55 at the time of survey. Findings are: Record review of the facility incident report revealed the date and time of the occurrence was 7/16/22 at 4:09 PM. Male resident touched female resident's breast. APS (Adult Protective Services) was notified on 7/18/22. Record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy, dated 9/13/2022 revealed the facility will report all alleged violations to the state agency and adult protective services and all other required agencies within specified timeframes: a) immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury or b) not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. In an interview on 4/10/23 at…
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 · D2023-04-11 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09B Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the MDS ((Minimum Data Set, a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities) reflected the current status of the resident at the time the assessment was completed related to a Serious Mental Illness diagnosis for Resident 34 and the MDS not being coded for PASRR Level II for Resident 26. This affected 2 of 2 residents sampled (Resident 34 and 26). The facility identified a census of 55. Findings Are: A. A record review of the admission diagnosis list for Resident 34, revealed the following diagnoses: -Schizoaffective Disorder, Unspecified dated 11/9/22; -Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe with Psychotic Symptoms dated 12/9/22; -Delirium due to known Physiological condition dated 12/9/22; -Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified dated 11/9/22. A record review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Section A1510 was not coded to reflect the resident had a Serious Mental Illness. B.…
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
$41,980 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $41,980 — penalty dated 2024-04-15
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KAUFFMAN INVESTMENTS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| MRS ENTERPRISES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| OCHSNER JJJ LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| QUALITY CARE SOLUTIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| ANDERSON, DOUGLAS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| HERMANSEN, LANCE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| KELLER, DUANE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| KRAJICEK, STEPHEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| MOYER, SAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| OHLSON, CORY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| UDEN, GENE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| VANDERHEIDEN, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2018 |
| HERITAGE BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| GROSHANS, HAYLEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| GROSHANS, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| PENNER, KIRK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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.
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 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 285263. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-07, 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.