No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Community Pride Care Center

901 South 4th Street, Battle Creek, NE 68715 · Government - City/county · 50 certified beds · (402) 675-2955 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (402) 675-2955 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0610) — cited Apr 2024
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
100 N 37th St · (402) 371-3671 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
2400 W Pasewalk Ave · (402) 371-6232 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2400 W Pasewalk Ave · (402) 371-5452 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 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 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased21.1%19.0%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.8%5.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.0%1.4%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.3%2.8%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms10.6%4.3%6.5%worse
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.3%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.6%4.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened10.1%18.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication32.1%19.3%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.1%4.0%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control25.9%25.9%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table2.7%20.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%2.0%1.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission12.5%20.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.4%11.4%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.071.811.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.561.921.80better

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.

39.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 31 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

39.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
66.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
not reportedno hours filed
Therapy hours / resident / day

Met the expected recovery: 66.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 21 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF39.4%CMS range 25.4–53.551.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.8%CMS range 6.2–14.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge66.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge42.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge42.9%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.7%CMS range 3.6–10.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.011.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.61
RN hours/ resident / day
0.24
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.38
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.23
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.32
RN hoursweekends
46.2%
Total nursing turnover
42.9%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 45.6 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.23 hrs/resident/day is below 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 1.38 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 1.81 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.40 on weekdays — 25% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-12-31)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-13)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide 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 175 NAC 12-006.18Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement their water management policy to prevent the potential growth of bacteria such as Legionella (bacteria naturally found in fresh water and can grow in man-made water systems and can cause serious lung infections) in the facility water system and failed to COVID test Resident 6 when the resident had signs and symptoms of a respiratory illness. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. The facility census was 45. Findings are: A. Review of the undated facility Legionella Management Policy revealed the following: -The facility defined the control and management of Legionella bacteria in water systems within the facility. -The Legionella management team consisted of the Administrator, Maintenance Director, Safety Officer, and Infection Control. -If staff found control limits such as temperature levels, disinfection levels or manufacturer recommendations were not met, staff took corrective actions to return conditions back to acceptable ranges.…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-12-31 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — pattern
    Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have documented duration of use for all prescribed antibiotics or documented rationale to continue antibiotics indefinitely for Residents 15, 31 and 37. The sample size was 8 and the facility census was 45. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Antimicrobial Stewardship Program dated November 2017 revealed the following: -The goal of the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) was to promote the appropriate use of antimicrobials in order to maximize treatment outcomes and minimize unintended consequences of antimicrobial therapy. The ASP aimed to improve antibiotic prescribing practices through the development and implementation of antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. -An Antimicrobial Stewardship Committee had been established to provide support and oversee activities of the ASP. The ASP was part of the infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) and reported activity and outcomes the QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement)…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-31 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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 NAC175 12-006.(D)(vi) Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to date a multi-dose medications for Resident 2 and 21 after medication was opened or accessed to ensure manufacturer recommendations and professional standards were followed. The sample size was 3 and the facility census was 45.Findings are:A. Review of the facility policy titled Labeling of Medication Containers revised [DATE], revealed all drugs and medications maintained in the facility would be properly labeled in accordance with state and federal regulations.The Policy interpretation and implementation revealed that labels for individual drug containers must include the expiration date.B. An observation on [DATE] at 7:20 AM revealed Registered Nurse (RN)-G, prepared Resident 2's Ozempic (anti-diabetic agent) 0.25 milligrams(mg). The Ozempic syringe was not dated when opened or when expired and there were 2 doses that had been administered out of the syringe. Review of Resident 2's…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 12-006.18(B) Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to implement the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE-items such as gowns, gloves, face shield that are worn to protect care givers) during the provision of cares for Resident 12 for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-involve gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities for residents known to be colonized or infected with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO-bacteria that have become resistant to certain antibiotics) as well as those at increased risk for MDRO, residents with wounds or indwelling medical device/s). The sample sizes was 4 with a census of 42. Findings are: Review of the EBP sign posted on Resident 12's room door, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Disease Control and Prevention revealed the following: For EBP Everyone Must: -Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and Staff Must…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-01 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    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 complete a thorough investigation following a fall with injury for Resident 1. The sample size was 4 and the facility census was 44. Findings are: Review of the facility undated policy Accidents and Incidents -Investigating and Recording revealed the e Charge Nurse or Department Director would conduct an immediate investigation of accidents/incidents including the circumstances surrounding the accident/incident. Review of the facility undated policy and procedure Shower/Tub Bath revealed the staff were to stay with the resident throughout bathing and never to leave a resident unattended, however there was no indication the policy addressed making sure the safety belt was used to secure residents in the bathing chair. Review of Resident 1's Care Plan dated 1/23/24 revealed the resident was at risk for falling, needed assistance with activities of daily living and was dependent for bed mobility, grooming, dressing, bathing, toileting, and transferring. In addition, the resident…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D7 Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the safety of Resident 1 during bathing resulting in an injury. The sample size was 4 and the facility census was 44. Findings are: Review of the facility undated policy and procedure Shower/Tub Bath revealed the staff were to stay with the resident throughout bathing and never to leave a resident unattended, however there was no indication the policy addressed making sure the safety belt was used to secure residents in the bathing chair. Review of Resident 1's Progress note dated 3/19/24 at 11:52 AM revealed the resident was in a bathing chair outside of the tub and as the Bathing Aide reached to grab a towel the resident reached to the side and leaned out of the bathing chair and fell to the floor hitting (gender) head on the leg of a full body mechanical lift. The Bathing Aide immediately called for a nurse to assist. The nurse responded finding the Bathing Aide on the floor supporting the resident's head. The resident's forehead was lacerated. The resident's…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-11-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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 12-006.09C Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to develop comprehensive Care Plans to accurately reflect the current status for 4 of 12 sampled residents (Resident 2's infection, and use of antianxiety medications, Resident 32's skin integrity, Resident 37's edema (fluid retention of tissue), and Resident 36's Hospice (end-of life) care). The facility census was 41. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Care Plan-Comprehensive dated 8/15/23 revealed the following; -The facility developed a comprehensive care plan that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs. -the interdisciplinary team in coordination with the resident, his/her family or representative, developed and maintained a comprehensive care plan for each resident, -the care plan was designed to identify problem areas, initiate goals, incorporate risk factors, build on resident strengths, reflect…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-02 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number NAC 12-006.02(8) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate Resident 192's potential misappropriation related to missing money in order to prevent further incidents. The total sample size was 17 and the facility census was 41. Findings are: Review of the undated facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Property revealed the following; -the purpose of the policy supported a 'zero tolerance' related to resident abuse, neglect and/or misappropriation of property; and -misappropriation was defined as; the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. Record review of a facility investigation report revealed on 2/5/23, Resident 192 reported missing bingo money from the resident's dresser drawer. There had been a search of the resident's room for the money, but staff were unable to locate it. The activity staff member and resident's family member confirmed the resident had $5.10 from bingo winnings in [gender] possession. The…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure to accurately code Resident 23's Preadmission Assessment and Annual Resident Review (PASARR) status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) and Care Plan the results. The total sample size was 12 and the facility census was 41. Findings are: Review of the facility policy PASARR, last revised 2/12/22 revealed the following: -PASARR was a federal requirement to ensure individuals were not inappropriately placed in nursing homes, and -when a level II PASARR was found, the facility would update the individuals Care Plan. Review of Resident 23's annual MDS dated [DATE] and a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the following: -in section A, the resident not marked to have been evaluated by Level II PASARR, -the resident was not marked to have a serious mental illness, -diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia, and -the resident took antipsychotic medication (a type of…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
CITY OF BATTLE CREEKOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/1989
BARRY, TAMMIIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2022
BOMAR, JOHNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
BUSSEY, LAYNEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/11/2023
FLEER, MICHAELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2017
HRABANEK, BARBIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/11/2023
HRBANEK, JOHNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2021
KRAFT, ERICIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2017
MCINTOSH, SHELLEYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/10/2024
METTLER, HEATHIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2022
MURPHY, ALLANIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/14/2023
NYGREN, BRENTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
SCHNOOR, KELSEYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/11/2023
BODE, TANYAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/11/2024
HIRSCHMAN, BRYONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010

CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

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.

$5.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-4.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 33%Medicare 7%Other / private 60%

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

$345per resident / day
operating cost
$10,500per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$331per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Nebraska
$8,377/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,216/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,350/mo
Assisted living

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 285208. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-31, 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.

What to do next