Good Samaritan Society - Bloomfield
300 North Second St, Bloomfield, NE 68718 · Non profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (402) 373-2531 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609) — 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 (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (56%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 23% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 fell from 5 to 3 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 | 9.6% | 19.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.3% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.1% | 18.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.3% | 19.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.2% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.7% | 20.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 24.1% | 75.9% | 79.4% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
40.8% 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 50 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 40.8%CMS range 27.5–51.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 6.3–16.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 70 beds and averages 31.0 residents a day — about 44% occupied, or roughly 39 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.33 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.73 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.57 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
20 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2025-11-24 · 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 12-006.18(B)&(C) Based on observations, record review, and interview; the facility failed to complete hand hygiene at appropriate intervals during the provision of cares and to provide care and management of Resident 1's indwelling urinary catheter (a flexible plastic tube inserted into the bladder that remains there to provide continuous urinary drainage) to prevent the potential for cross contamination and urinary tract infections. The sample size was 3. In addition, the facility failed to prevent the potential spread of COVID-19 related to failure to test staff who displayed signs and symptoms of COVID-19, this had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 30. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy titled Handwashing/hand hygiene revised on 1/30/25 revealed the facility considered hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infection. The policy indicated staff were to wash hands with an antimicrobial or a non-antimicrobial soap 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 · Ecited before2025-11-24 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 12-006.04(D)Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews: the facility staff failed to ensure sufficient staff were available to provide timely toileting/incontinence cares for Resident 1 and to respond to call lights within expected timeframes. The total sample size was 3 and the facility census was 30. Findings are: A. Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 9/26/25 indicated the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure, previous stroke, paralysis to one side of his body, sepsis (extreme response to infection leading to widespread inflammation, organ damage and potential organ failure), obstructive uropathy (medical condition where the flow of urine is blocked. causing it to back up and potentially damage the kidneys), anxiety, depression, and diabetes. The assessment identified the resident's cognition was intact, the resident required total staff assistance…
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 · D2025-11-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(H)Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report to the State Agency, complete an investigation and then to submit the investigation within 5 working days an allegation of staff to resident abuse for 1 (Resident 1) of 3 sampled residents. The facility staff identified a census of 30.Findings are: A. Review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect Policy with a reviewed/revised date of 4/7/25 revealed the policy of the facility was to ensure all alleged or suspected violations involving any mistreatment. neglect, exploitation or abuse, including injuries of unknown origin were to be reported immediately to the Administrator or a delegated individual. The purpose of the policy was to:-ensure employees were knowledgeable regarding reporting and investigating the process of abuse and neglect allegations in the facility.-ensure the facility had an effective system in place that, regardless of the source, prevented mistreatment, neglect, exploitation, 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 · D2025-11-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(F)(iii)Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to update Resident 1's comprehensive care plan to reflect the resident's preference for getting up in the morning. The sample size was 3 and the facility census was 30. Findings are:Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 9/26/25 indicated the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure, previous stroke, paralysis to one side of his body, sepsis (extreme response to infection leading to widespread inflammation, organ damage and potential organ failure), obstructive uropathy (medical condition where the flow of urine is blocked. causing it to back up and potentially damage the kidneys), anxiety, depression, and diabetes. The assessment identified the resident's cognition was intact, the resident required total staff assistance with toileting hygiene, dressing, personal hygiene, bed mobility 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 · Dcited before2025-11-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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(H)(i)(3)Based on observations, record review, and interview; the facility failed to provide timely toileting assistance/incontinence management for Resident 1 who required assistance with activities of daily living. The total sample size was 3 and the facility census was 30. Findings are: Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 9/26/25 indicated the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure, previous stroke, paralysis to one side of his body, sepsis (extreme response to infection leading to widespread inflammation, organ damage and potential organ failure), obstructive uropathy (medical condition where the flow of urine is blocked. causing it to back up and potentially damage the kidneys), anxiety, depression, and diabetes. The assessment identified the resident's cognition was intact, the resident required total staff assistance with toileting hygiene, dressing,…
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 before2025-11-18 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 12-006.04 Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to have staff adequate to meet the needs of Residents 1, 2, 4, and 5. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 35. Findings are: A. Record review of the Facility Assessment (comprehensive data driven evaluation of a facilities physical condition and it's ability including the resources (including staff) needed to provide adequate care and services) with a review date of 8/15/25 revealed the facility provided assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs, tasks related to personal care, such as dressing, eating, and mobility) and utilized evidence based, data driven methods to have appropriate staffing to meet the needs of the residents. This included nights and weekends. As the needs of the population changed staffing patterns were adjusted to meet those needs. The facility confirmed resident needs were met through frequent communication with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H) Based on record review, and interviews the facility failed to provide needed Activities of Daily Living (ADL, tasks related to personal care, such as dressing, eating, and mobility) assistance to Resident 5 in a timely manner. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 35. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility policy Activities of Daily Living dated 12/23/24 revealed the facility provided residents with appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve abilities in activities of daily living for the well-being of mind, body, and soul. Any resident unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal hygiene. ADL's included the following: Hygiene, Bathing, Dressing, Mobility, Toileting, Eating, and Communication. Record review of the facility policy for Call Lights dated 7/8/25 revealed the facility ensured residents had a method of calling for assistance and promptly answered resident call lights. The facility responded to requests 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 · Dcited before2025-11-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(I) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to review, revise and/or implement care plan interventions to prevent falls for Resident 1. The sample size was 3 and the facility census was 35. Findings are:Record review of the facility policy Fall Prevention and Management last reviewed 4/8/25 revealed the following:-staff were to use a proactive approach before a fall occurred which included screening to identify risk factors, care planning appropriate interventions, and communicating fall risks and interventions. Fall Procedure:-after a fall a nurse was to observe the resident and perform a full-body exam to determine if there may be a suspected injury,-if no serious injury, staff were to use a total body lift to transfer the resident off the floor,-when the resident was stable, staff were to investigate the causal factors of the fall,-initial documentation would be in the SAFE Event Report form and if any additional documentation was needed it would…
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 · E2025-07-01 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — patternPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to have documented clinical rationale for not completing Gradual Dose Reductions (GDR)'s for Residents 13 and 18 Psychotropic (drugs that affect the mind, emotions, and behavior) medications. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 29. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Psychotropic Medications with a revision date of 5/12/25 revealed the following: -The facility evaluated behavior interventions before using psychotropic medications and eliminated unnecessary psychotropic medications. The residents would be free from chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience or not required to treat the residents' medical symptoms. -Resident were not given psychotropic drugs unless the medication was necessary. -Residents who used psychotropic medications received gradual dose reductions unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue the medications. -A consent form must be signed for the use of psychotropic medications. -The use of as needed psychotropic medications was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure practitioner's orders were followed for 1 (Resident 25) of 1 sampled resident. The facility identified a census of 29. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Medication Administration with a revision date of 4/8/25 revealed if a medication was not available for 24 hours, the practitioner was to be notified the medication was not available and the staff were to be given directions for how to proceed. If the resident chose not to take the medication, this should be reported to the charge nurse and documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The practitioner should also be notified if the resident continues to choose not to take the medication for more than 3 doses so that the prescriber can consider an alternative. Review of Resident 25's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 5/2025 revealed an order dated 4/25/25 for Yupelri (a medication which is used in the treatment of respiratory disease by relaxing the muscles around the airways in the lungs…
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 10 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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(H)(iii)(2) Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to evaluate pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and underlying tissue, typically caused by prolonged pressure on the skin), to monitor interventions to ensure healing and to prevent the development of further pressure ulcers for 1 (Resident 21) of 3 sampled residents. The facility staff identified a census of 29. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Skin Assessment, Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Documentation with a revision date of 4/6/25 revealed the purpose of the policy was to systematically assess residents regarding potential risk of skin breakdown, to accurately document observations and assessments of residents, and to appropriately use prevention techniques and pressure re-distribution surfaces on those residents at risk for pressure ulcers. The following procedures were identified: -all residents were to be assessed/identified for their risk of developing pressure ulcers…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(I) Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to implement and monitor Care Plan fall prevention interventions for Resident 20. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 29. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Fall Prevention and Management dated 4/8/25 revealed the following: -The facility promoted resident well-being by developing and implementing a fall prevention and management program to identify risk and implement measures before falls occurred. -Communicated that a fall had occurred and updated the Care Plan with any changes or new interventions, and -monitored the condition and effectiveness of interventions. Review of Resident 20's Falls Tools (tool used to evaluate fall risk) revealed the following: -on 5/19/25 at 1:58 PM the fall tool revealed the resident was at high risk for falling, -on 6/16/25 at 8:30 PM the fall tool revealed the resident was at high risk for falling. Review of the Resident 20's Event Abstract dated 5/18/25 at 1:30 PM revealed Resident 20 was trying to hurry to the toilet…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-01 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 Resident 6, was offered the COVID-19 vaccine, or was provided with education on the benefits and risks of the vaccine in order to make an informed decision on staying up to date on the COVID-19 vaccination status. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 29. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Immunizations/Vaccinations for Residents, Pneumococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and Other with a revision dated of 11/20/24 revealed the following: -The facility provided residents with the opportunity to receive immunizations as they fit into their healthcare goals and to provide guidance for the facilities program including recommended vaccines. -The facility reviewed each resident's immunizations upon admission, and on an ongoing basis. -The facility provided vaccine information statements for influenza, pneumococcal, and COVID-19 vaccines. -The facility provided documented education on the benefits and potential side effects of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D7 Based on observations, interview, and record review; the facility failed to identify causal factors and to revise and/or develop fall interventions to prevent ongoing falls for Residents 79, 25, and 6 and to implement fall interventions for Resident 6. The sample size was 4 and the facility census was 24. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Fall Prevention and Management last reviewed on 4/2/24 revealed the following: -the facility would care plan the appropriate interventions, -communicate fall risks and interventions to prevent a fall before it occurred, care plan it, add to the daily standup meetings and/or fall committee meetings, -communicate any identified environmental changes and/or referral needs, -if any teaching was done, it would be documented in the medical record, -fall occurrences would be communicated during shift change and daily stand-up meetings, -care plans would be updated with any changes and new interventions, and -the effectiveness…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-09 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12(D) Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 4 residents' (Residents 6, 8, 17, and 83) medications had a record of accounting to prevent loss or theft of medications while awaiting disposition. The sample size was 4 and the facility census was 24. Findings are: A. Review of the undated facility policy Medication: Disposition with a revised dated of 8/1/23 revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure accurate disposal of medications and provided instruction for the disposition of medications. The following procedures were identified: -physician orders to discontinue medications were to be recorded and the medication immediately removed from the resident's supply, -discontinued medications were to be kept in a secure place in the medication room until returned to the pharmacy or destroyed, -disposal of any medication was to be carried out in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines, and -documentation of medications to be returned to the pharmacy or destroyed was to include the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-09 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.06 Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to address repeat grievances, and to ensure sustainable resolutions of concerns related to the provision of cares and activities for Resident 21. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 24. Findings are: Review of the facility's Grievances, Suggestions and Concerns Policy with a revision date of 11/14/23 revealed the purpose of the policy was to document concerns, investigative findings, and plans of correction and to develop a systematic approach in resolving grievances as a tool to ensure continuous quality of care. The following procedure was identified: -a grievance was to be documented and then submitted to the grievance official Social Service Director (SSD), -the grievance official was to route the grievance to the appropriate department manager as soon as reasonably possible, -an investigation was to be completed for all grievances. The investigation could be informal, but it was to be thorough, -the grievance official was to issue a written grievance decision to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-09 · 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 12-006.04(F)(i)5 Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to notify Resident 21's family/responsible party of changes in the resident's condition related to weight loss and the initiation of nutritional interventions to address weight loss. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 24. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Notification of Change with revision date of 12/4/23 revealed the facility was to monitor residents for changes in their condition, to respond appropriately to these changes and to notify the physician and the responsible party/family members of the changes. B. Review of Resident 21's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning, dated 4/10/24 revealed diagnoses of non-traumatic brain dysfunction, Alzheimer's disease, and depression. The resident required substantial to moderate assistance with dressing, personal hygiene, bed mobility and transfers and was dependent with oral and toileting hygiene; was incontinent of bowel and bladder; 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 · Ecited before2023-06-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D7 Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to review falls for causal factors and implement measures to prevent ongoing falls for Resident's 15, 17, 20, and 75. The sample size was 4 and the facility census was 21. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility policy Fall Prevention and Management with a revision date of 3/29/23 revealed the following; -The facility promoted resident well-being by developing and implementing a fall prevention and management program. -identified risk factors and implemented interventions before falls occurred, -gave prompt treatment after a fall occurred, -utilized proactive approaches before falls occurred, -care planned appropriate and personalized interventions, and -communicated fall risks and interventions to prevent falls. -following a fall staff would update the plan of care with any changes or new interventions, and -monitor the resident's condition and the effectiveness of interventions. B. Record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-08 · 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 Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09A Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASARR- a federally mandated screening program to ensure Nursing Home resident with mental illness and/or developmental disabilities receive the care and services they need in the most appropriate settings) screen was completed accurately and/or a new PASARR was initiated to determine if a Level II PASARR evaluation was warranted for Resident 16. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 21. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) revised 12/21/22 revealed the following; -the purpose was to ensure individuals with serious mental illness receive the care and services in the appropriate setting, -the purpose of a Level I was to identify individuals who have or may have mental disorders or intellectual disability who would then require a Level II evaluation, -serious mental illness was considered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-08 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
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 12-006.09D8a Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to provide Resident 7 with a Level 5 Minced and Moist diet (foods that are ground, soft, moist and easy to chew) as recommended by the Speech Therapist and ordered by the practitioner. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 21. Findings are: Record review of Resident 7's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 5/17/23 revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure, end stage renal disease, Alzheimer's disease, dementia and malnutrition. Resident 7's cognition was assessed as severely impaired with behaviors which included rejection of cares. The resident had a weight of 160 pounds and was identified as having a weight loss of 5 percent (%) or more in the last month or a loss of 10% or more in the last 6 months with no physician prescribed weight-loss regimen indicated. Record review of a Speech…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY — 92 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 2.8 | +2.2 vs chain |
The other 91 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 91; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SANFORD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2019 |
| BROWN, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| DYKHOUSE, DANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| ENGBRECHT, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GASSEN, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| GULSVIG, NEIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| HERSETH SANDLIN, STEPHANIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| LUNDEEN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| MCCAUSLAND, MAUREEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MOLBERT, LAURIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| NORTH, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| SCHIEFFER, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SHULKIN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| TEIKEN, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/30/2024 |
| WENZEL, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FLUIT, JOEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/01/2022 |
| MIDDLETON, AIMEE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/27/2022 |
| OLSON, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/08/2024 |
| SCHEMA, NATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| ECKMANN, RILEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/16/2017 |
| MORRISON, TONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| TERNUS, MADISON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/18/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $759K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 23% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NE
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Nebraska Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 285156. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-01, 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.