Park View Haven Nursing Home
309 North Madison Street, Coleridge, NE 68727 · Non profit - Other · 34 certified beds · (402) 283-4224 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0606), cited Jan 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $34,512 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-28)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (72%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 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 | 29.1% | 19.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.3% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 23.1% | 4.3% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 12.2% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.5% | 18.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.8% | 19.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.5% | 4.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.9% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.2% | 20.7% | 17.1% | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 34 beds and averages 23.1 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.03 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.81 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.77 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.59 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.21 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.62 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 72% 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-01-28 · 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)(i). Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to identify causal factors and to revise and/or develop additional interventions for the prevention of ongoing falls and a fall with a significant injury for Resident 78. The sample size was 7 and the facility census was 29. Findings are: A. Review of the facility Fall Prevention and Management Program with a revision date of 8/23/24 revealed the purpose of the policy was to develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate the prevention and the management of falls. Fall prevention included the determination of a resident's risk for falls. The staff were to develop fall prevention interventions based on the resident's risk factors. If interventions were not effective in reducing falls, then new interventions were to be initiated. If a resident had a fall staff were to follow the following procedure: -complete head-to-toe assessment. -notify the attending physician of the fall, interventions, and the status 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 · F2026-04-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled:Number of residents cited:Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.11(E)Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure dishwasher temperatures were maintained at levels to ensure adequate sanitization to prevent potential food-borne illnesses. This had the potential to affect all residents that ate food out of the kitchen. The facility census was 21.Findings are:A. Review of the facility policy titled Nursing Home Dishwashing Policy, undated revealed the following:-The facility ensured sanitization either through high temperatures (180 degrees Fahrenheit rinse) or chemical sanitizers (50-100 parts per million (ppm) chlorine).-Sanitization requirements for a Chemical Sanitizing Machine consisted of the following:-Wash Cycle reached a minimum of 120 degrees Fahrenheit and Sanitizer Concentration was 50-100 ppm chlorine.B. Observation of dishwasher temperatures revealed the following:-On 4/6/26 at 9:17 AM the dishwasher temperature reached 100 degrees; the water temperature reached 110 degrees after 3 wash cycles were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-09 · tag F0552 — patternEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(E)Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to have comprehensive informed consent including timeliness of the consent (prior to medication given), medication doses and potential alternate treatment plans for the use of psychotropic (mind-altering) medications for Residents 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 21. Findings are: A. Review of the undated facility policy for Anti-psychotropic Drugs revealed the physicians and profession/direct care staff used psychotropic medication appropriately and worked with the interdisciplinary team to ensure appropriate use, evaluation and monitoring. -The facility made every effort to comply with state and federal regulations related to the use of psychopharmacological (medications affecting mood, behavior, sensation, thinking, and behavior) medication in long-term care to include regular review for continued need, appropriate dosage, side effects, risks and/or benefits. -efforts 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 · Dcited before2026-04-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 12-006.18Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to test symptomatic residents for Covid-19 for 1 (Resident 20) out of 16 sampled residents. The facility census was 21. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Covid-19 Policy and Procedure (undated) revealed the following:-all residents, families and staff would be educated regarding Covid-19;-the facility would report testing results per CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare) guidelines;-residents, regardless of vaccination status with signs and symptoms of Covid would be tested; and-symptoms of Covid included cough and shortness of breath. B. Review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated assessment tool used in care planning) dated 12/26/25 revealed the resident was admitted [DATE]; had moderate cognitive impairment; required assistance with dressing the lower body and needed supervision with toileting, personal hygiene and dressing the upper body; and had diagnoses of Chronic…
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 before2025-01-28 · 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 Based on observations, record review and interview; the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 2 (Resident's 4 and 10) of 3 residents. The facility failure had the potential to effect all residents in the building. The facility census was 29. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Covid-19 Policy and Procedure, last reviewed 11/26/24 revealed the following: -all staff were required to wear a surgical mask at all times during an outbreak, -N95 masks would be required when entering a resident's room if they were Covid positive, -all residents regardless of vaccination status would not be required to wear masks when in the hallways except if they had been exposed to COVID-19, -newly identified COVID-19 staff or residents that could identify close contacts then all staff would be tested that had a high risk exposure, and all residents that had close contact with a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-28 · 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 an allegation of potential abuse and/or neglect to the State Agency, to complete an investigation and submit the results of the investigation for 1 (Resident 8) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 29. Findings are: A. Review of the facility Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation Policy (undated) indicated the following: -failure to provide supervision (care and control of a vulnerable adult which a reasonable and prudent person could exercise under similar facts and circumstances) was one definition of abuse. -the facility was to report any alleged abuse/neglect, injuries of unknown origin, or misappropriation of resident property in accordance with state regulations. -the facility was to conduct an investigation of such allegations in accordance with state law. -the facility was to report all investigation findings to the state in accordance with state regulations. B. Review of Resident 8'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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-04 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.02(H) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to report to the State Agency and submit an investigation within 5 working days of a potential elopement for 1 (Resident 4) of 4 sampled residents. The facility staff identified a census of 22. Findings are: A. Review of the facility Abuse/Neglect/Misappropriation policy and procedure (undated) following: -individual residents with needs and behaviors that might lead to conflict, or neglect will be reassessed, care planned and monitored as needed. -neglect was defined as the failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness; -proper supervision was defined as care and control of a vulnerable adult which a reasonable and prudent person would exercise under similar facts and circumstances; and -potential incidents of abuse/neglect were to be reported immediately to the State Agency and an investigation was to be conducted with the results submitted to the State Agency in 5 working days. B. Review of Resident 4's Nursing…
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 before2024-09-04 · 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(l) Based on observations, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure Residents 1 and 3, who were identified at risk for falls, were free from accident hazards related to the independent use of motorized recliners in their rooms. The sample size was 4 and the facility census was 22. Findings are: A. Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 7/12/24 revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, prostate cancer, chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure. The following was assessed regarding the resident: -severe cognitive impairment, -required assistance with transfers, dressing, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and bed mobility, and -frequently incontinent of bladder. Review of the resident's current Care Plan dated 4/14/24 revealed the resident was at risk for falls due to a history of falls, and poor safety awareness with diagnosis…
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 · D2024-01-22 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — isolatedNot hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04A3b Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure criminal background checks and/or State Nurse Aide Registry checks were completed on 4 of 5 employees. The facility census was 20. Findings are: Review of the undated facility policy Abuse/Neglect/Misappropriation revealed the following: -The facility will maintain an environment where the resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect and misappropriation and not hire employees with a history of abuse. -The facility will conduct adult and child abuse checks, criminal background checks, and sex offender checks before the employee's date of hire. -The state nurse aide registry will be checked for Certified Nursing Assistant positions to determine if any findings of abuse, neglect, mistreatment of individuals, and/or theft of property have been entered into the applicant's file. -Licensed professionals involved with direct care of residents will be checked for any sanctions through the licensing board. Review of 5 employee files on 1/22/24 revealed the following…
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 · D2024-01-22 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(A) Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident 5's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR-federally required review to ensure that individuals with Mental Illness (MI), Intellectual Disability (ID), or Related Disorders (RD) are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes without appropriate services) accurately reflected a MI diagnosis. The sample size was 12 and the facility census was 20. Findings are: Review of the facility policy admission Criteria with a revision date of December 2016 revealed the following; -Nursing and medical needs of individuals with Mental Disorders (MD) or ID were determined by coordination with the PASARR program. -Residents with MD's would only be admitted to the facility if the State Mental Health Agency had determined through PASARR screening that the individual had physical or mental conditions that required the level of services provided by the facility. Review of Resident 5's PASARR completed on 11/29/22 by the facility Social Services Personnel revealed 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 · D2024-01-22 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12E1 Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident 5's medications were stored securely. The sample size was 12 and the facility census was 20. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Medication Storage dated [DATE] revealed the following; -only licensed nurses, pharmacists, and those lawfully authorized are allowed to access medications, -medications, treatments, and biologicals were stored safely, securely, and properly and the medication supply was only accessible to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. During an observation on 1/17/24 at 7:45 AM of the provision of medication to Resident 5 by Registered Nurse (RN)-A revealed RN-A put on disposable gloves and entered the resident's room to administer the resident's medication. Taken into the room were the resident's oral medications, a bin taken from the medication cart containing a blood glucose…
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 before2024-01-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 12-006.17 Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during care and treatments for Residents 5 and 19 and failed to ensure re-usable medical care equipment was cleaned after use to prevent potential cross-contamination. The sample size was 12 and the facility census was 20. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Parkview Haven Standard Precautions dated 5/11/23 revealed the following; -The facility recognized that pathogens (bacteria, virus, or other micro-organism that can cause disease) were transmitted from colonized (the presence of bacteria with absence of disease) or infected patients, the environment, and healthcare personnel either by person to person or person to environment, and healthcare workers followed processes for caring for all residents to reduce the risk of infectious disease transmission. -Hand hygiene was performed when entering resident rooms, before direct patient contact, before putting on gloves, after contact with blood, body fluids, mucous membranes, non-intact…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2026-04-09 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(B) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to issue the required Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC-the required Medicare information provided to residents being discharge from Medicare following a covered stay in which the facility is required to inform the resident 2 days in advance to allow for appeal of the facility decision if desired, and the cost for continued services within the facility) for Resident's 1 and 4. The sample size was 3 and the facility census was 21.Finding are: Review of Resident 1's Notice of Skilled Nursing Non-Coverage dated 2/19/26 revealed the resident would be responsible for the cost of care and services provided beginning on 2/25/26, however there was no evidence the resident had been informed of the right to appeal the facility decision to discontinue Medicare covered services, and no evidence of the cost of continued services in the facility. Review of Resident 4's Notice of Skilled Nursing Non-Coverage dated 9/22/25 revealed the resident would be responsible for the cost of care 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.
“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
$34,512 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $34,512 — penalty dated 2025-01-28
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-02-21 for 7 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VILLAGE OF COLERIDGE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 08/01/1972 |
| COOK, TERRILL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| FRERICHS, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2022 |
| HEFNER, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/1991 |
| KALIN, TONY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| LAGE, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2023 |
| MOSEL, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/25/2021 |
| RECOB, SAMUEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NE
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Nebraska Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 285073. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-09, 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.