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

Heritage Estates

2325 Lodge Drive, Gering, NE 69341 · Non profit - Corporation · 102 certified beds · (308) 436-5007 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (308) 436-5007 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 13 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
975 Cresent Dr · (308) 632-2540 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1400 10th St · (308) 436-2181 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1270 10th St · (308) 633-2901 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased32.8%19.0%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.5%5.1%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.4%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.5%2.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.3%4.3%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.3%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.7%4.5%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened31.9%18.2%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.4%19.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.2%4.0%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control32.7%25.9%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table16.6%20.7%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.9%2.0%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine92.9%75.9%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission18.1%20.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit1.9%11.4%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.261.811.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.061.921.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

43.9% 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 90 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

43.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
53.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.20U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 53.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 64 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF43.9%CMS range 33.2–57.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.5%CMS range 6.5–14.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge53.1%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge57.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge53.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.8%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.7%CMS range 4.1–13.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.991.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.89
RN hours/ resident / day
0.53
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.02
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.44
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.67
RN hoursweekends
51.5%
Total nursing turnover
19.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 102 beds and averages 96.4 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.44 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.02 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 3.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.68 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-06-25)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-16)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

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

  • Potential for harm · F2026-06-25 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespread
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.1(A)(i)Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that residents were served the approved menu serving sizes. This affected 11 observed residents served food from the facility kitchen (Residents 77, 73, 19, 7, 65, 41, 92, 10, 60, 79, and 85). The facility census was 99.Findings are: A. Record review of the facility Resident Policies dated 12/2020 revealed that the facility will provide the resident with a diet that their physician has ordered. The menu selections are served to meet their orders and have been approved by a qualified dietitian. Record review of the undated Questions & Answers from the undated facility admission packet revealed that the facility serves three meals a day. A dietician oversees dietary needs. Record review of the recipe for Pureed Beef Soft Tacos (pureed is a cooked food item that has been ground with a blender into a smooth pudding-like consistency for residents with difficulty chewing or swallowing) dated 2026 revealed that the portion (serving size) was two #6 scoops (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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    License Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18(B)(D)Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that infection control measures for hand hygiene were followed while assisting residents with eating meals and when donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) gloves. This affected 8 residents of 8 sampled (Residents 57, 99, 16, 47, 36, 2, 22, and 55.); and the facility failed to ensure that those who had indwelling catheters had catheter bags kept off the floor. This had the potential to affect all residents in the 500 hall (Residents 22, 93, 99, 15, 24, 28, 69, 46, 90, 78, 16, 76, 82, 58, 57, and 5). The facility census was 99. Findings were: Record Review of the Hand Hygiene Competency dated 12/2019 revealed when one is to wash their hands with working within the facility. Hands were to be washed:Before eating or drinkingBefore each resident contactAfter touching a resident or handling their belongingsAfter contact with any body fluidsAfter handling contaminated itemsBefore and after glovingWhenever indicatedHand Hygiene using hand sanitizer was to be completed:…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0552 — isolated
    Ensure 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 obtain complete consents for psychoactive medications for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 28 and 46), and failed to ensure that the resident power of attorney (POA; a legal document that allows a person to designate someone else to make decisions or act on their behalf regarding financial, legal, or medical matters) provided informed consent for use of psychotropic medications (any medication that affects behavior, mood, thoughts, or perception) as required for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident 51). The facility census was 99. Findings are:Record review of a facility document titled, Psychoactive medication and medication regimen review standard, dated 6/2026, revealed a policy for managing residents' medication regimens, as well as guidelines for psychoactive medications. The policy also revealed a consent for the use of psychoactive medications must be completed prior to initiating any psychoactive…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolated
    Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(E)(F)Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that Resident Rights, which are presented to the residents and resident representatives at the time of admission, are honored and followed as written. This affected one resident of one sampled, Resident 22. The facility census was 99. Record review of the Resident Rights (federally protected rights that ensure a safe, dignified, and respectful life which guarantee freedom from abuse, the ability to make personal choices, and the right to proper medical care. Facilities must fully inform residents of these rights upon admission.) received from the Facility Administrator (FA) had a copyright date of 2017 and revealed the document is to inform you of your rights as a resident of this facility. Federal law requires that we provide these rights in writing, in a language and format you understand, upon admission and throughout your stay. Carefully review these rights by yourself and / or with your responsible party. During your stay, if any of these change, you will be…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to submit accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used to determine a resident's functional capabilities) for the medication regimen for 1 (Resident 5) of 5 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 99 residents. Findings are:Record review of a facility document titled, admission record, revealed Resident 5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic disease in which the body does not use insulin effectively, leading to irregular blood sugar levels and medical complications), acute respiratory failure, lymphedema (tissue swelling caused by extra fluid that is usually drained by the body's lymphatic system), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL, a type of cancer that affects the blood and bone marrow).Record review of Resident 5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used to determine a resident's functional capabilities)…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05 (E)Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09 (E)(i)Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09 (F)(ii) Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that residents , as well as their resident representatives, were invited to the care plan meetings on a quarterly basis for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident 22); and failed to revise the care plan to meet the needs of the resident when an antipsychotic was initiated for 1 resident (Resident 51) of 5 residents sampled. The facility census was 99. Findings are:Record review of the policy Comprehensive Care Plans dated 11/28/2026 revealed that the facility will develop and implement a comprehensive care plan (a detailed, step-by-step guide used in long-term care (LTC). It lists a resident's exact medical, physical, and emotional needs. The goal is to help the resident stay as healthy and happy as possible) for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-04-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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

    Based on observation, interview, and review of the 2022 Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1) there was a trash can near the handwashing sink; 2) pots and pans were stored inverted; 3) expired food items were discarded; and 4) staff washed their hands when they entered the kitchen before they began to prepare food. These deficient practices affected all residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings included: 1. Section 4-903 Storing of the 2022 Food Code published by the United States Food and Drug Administration, indicated (B) Clean equipment and utensils shall be stored as specified under [symbol] (A) of this section and shell be stored: (1) In a self-draining position that allows air drying; and (2) Covered or inverted. Section 6-301.20 Disposable Towels, Waste Receptables. A handwashing sink or group of adjacent handwashing sinks that is provided with disposable towels shall be provided with a waste receptable as specified under [symbol] 5-501.16(C). During a concurrent observation and interview on 04/14/2025 at 9:00 AM, the surveyor noted there was not a trash…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions to prevent the development of pressure ulcers for 1 (Resident #10) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcer/injury. Findings included: An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #10 on 09/22/2023. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of pressure-induced deep tissue damage of the sacral region. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/02/2025, revealed Resident #10 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with lower body dressing and was dependent on staff for putting on/taking off footwear. According to the MDS, the resident was at risk for developing pressure ulcers/injuries and had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries. Resident #10's Care Plan Report included a focus area initiated…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer treatment interventions were implemented in an effort to prevent new or worsening pressure ulcers for 1 (Resident #10) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcer/injury. Findings included: An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #10 on 09/22/2023. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of pressure-induced deep tissue damage of the sacral region. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/02/2025, revealed Resident #10 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with lower body dressing and was dependent on staff for putting on/taking off footwear. According to the MDS, the resident was at risk for developing pressure ulcers/injuries and had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries. Resident #10's Care Plan Report…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store respiratory equipment when not in use to prevent contamination for 1 (Resident #9) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care. Findings included: An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #9 on 11/13/2018. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history to include a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/19/2025, revealed Resident #9 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2, which indicated the resident was severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated that the resident required oxygen therapy. Resident #9's Care Plan Report included a focus area initiated 06/26/2024, that indicated the resident was at risk for altered respiratory function related to oxygen therapy. Interventions directed staff to check oxygen saturation as required and monitor for shortness of breath as needed. Resident #9's physician's order dated 11/15/2024, indicated oxygen at 2 liters per…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-23 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference 175 NAC 12-06.09(J)(i)(1) Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility staff failed to implement interventions to manage weight loss for 2 (Resident 1 and 2) of 3 sampled residents. The facility staff identified a census of 97. Findings are: A record review of an undated facility policy Significant Weight Loss indicated the following: - Significant weight loss in 1 week is 1-2%; more than 1-2% is considered severe weight loss. - Significant weight loss over 1 month is 5%; more than 5% is considered severe weight loss. - Significant weight loss over 3 months is 7.5%; more than 7.5% is considered severe weight loss. - Significant weight loss over 6 months is 10%; more than 10% is considered severe weight loss - The policy defined avoidable weight loss as an individual that did not maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status and that the facility did not do one or more of the following: evaluate the individual's clinical condition, define and implement interventions, monitor and evaluate the impact of the interventions, and revise the interventions…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 172 NAC 12-006.05(21) Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain the dignity of 3 (Residents #43, #87, and #60) of 3 residents who were observed during dining. The facility failed to serve all residents who were sitting at the same table their meal at the same time before proceeding to the next table, leaving the residents to watch their tablemate's eat. The facility census was 99. Findings are: An undated excerpt from the employee handbook titled [Name of facility ownership] Values revealed, We will create a living environment that radiates love, peace, spiritual contentment, dignity and safety, while encouraging personal independence. A. A review of an admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #43 on 04/02/2017. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of hypertension and dementia. A review of Resident #43's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/10/2024 revealed Resident #43 had 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolated
    Provide or obtain dental services for each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.14 Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide routine dental services for 1 (Resident #71) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 99. Findings are: A review of the facility policy titled Dental Policy dated August 2017, revealed the Facility must arrange for transportation to and from the dental services locations; and must assist residents who are eligible to participate to apply for reimbursement of dental services as an incurred medical expense under the State plan such as Medicaid. A review of an admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #71 on 04/13/2021 with diagnoses of unspecified dementia and convulsions. The admission Record identified Dental Provider D as Resident #71 dental provider and indicated the resident was a Medicaid recipient. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/20/2024, revealed Resident #71 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to VETTER SENIOR LIVING — 22 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 54.2-0.2 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.9-0.9 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.3+0.7 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
VETTER SENIOR LIVINGOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL100%since 12/23/2016
LONGORIA, TARAIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/01/2017
MORRIS, CORYIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/24/2018
STUHR, BRIANIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/15/2017
VANEKEREN, GLENNIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/15/2017
VETTER, ELDORAIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/15/2017
VETTER, JACKIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/15/2017
VSL VETTER HEALTH SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/01/2017

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.

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.

$13.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+2.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$611K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 56%Medicare 8%Other / private 37%

This home reported $611K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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

$355per resident / day
operating cost
$10,784per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$365per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NE

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Nebraska Medicaid page.

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

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 285071. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-25, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next