Eventide Prairie Commons Care Center
3490 Ewoldt Street, Grand Island, NE 68803 · Non profit - Corporation · 36 certified beds · (308) 321-1122 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $10,296 in federal fines (most recent 2025-05-01)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (67%) 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 20.0% | 19.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.8% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.1% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 19.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.7% | 19.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.9% | 4.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.8% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.9% | 20.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.7% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.8% | 75.9% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.4% | 20.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.9% | 11.4% | 12.0% | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
62.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 71 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.8% 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 83 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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
| 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 | 62.2%CMS range 51.8–70.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.1%CMS range 7.2–17.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 57.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 54.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 51.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 29.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.5–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 36 beds and averages 31.1 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 5 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 4.41 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.86 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.69 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 4.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.50 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.81 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 67% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-05-01 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident code status for life saving measures were accurate for all residents. This affected 2 (Resident 1 and Resident 18) of 23 sampled residents. The facility census was 23. [NAME] at Prairie Commons was notified on [DATE] at 1:43 PM of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) which began on [DATE]. The IJ was removed on [DATE] at 5:20 PM, as confirmed by surveyor onsite verification. Findings are: Record review of the facility policy Advanced Directives dated [DATE] stated the purpose of the policy was to recognize the Senior's rights to make decisions relating to their own medical care, including the right to accept or refuse treatment and the right to formulate an advanced directive (a document allowing a person to give directions about future medical care or to designate another person to make medical decisions if he or she should lose the ability to make decisions. consistent with state and federal regulations and the patient self-determination act…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(I)Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(I)(i)(1)Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(I)(i)(3)Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide and implement interventions to protect residents from sunburn injury for 1of 3 residents (Resident 1). This caused Resident 1 to experience sunburn injury requiring treatment. The facility census was 27.Findings are:Record review of the undated facility Elder Abuse Prevention Program revealed that the facility will not tolerate any form of elder abuse. Neglect is a failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services to an elder necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. The section titled Indicators that must be reported and investigated revealed that burns, bruises, all injuries of unknown source, and fractures of unknown origin must be reported and investigated. Record review of the facility policy titled Change of Condition dated 2/10/26 revealed that a nurse will promptly…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-01 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NA 12-006.10(D) Based on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication error rates were not 5% or greater (27 opportunities with 10 errors resulted in an error rate of 37.04%). This affected 3 (Residents 1, 5, and 123) of 4 residents sampled. The facility census was 23. Findings are: Record review of the undated Medication Error Policy revealed it is the facility policy to ensure residents are free from significant medication errors and that the facility maintains a medication error less that 5%. Medication errors included the following errors: Wrong time Omission of a medication Record review of the undated facility medication times revealed that 6:00 AM to 11:00 AM [NAME] is called AM 6a-11a. This is the time period any of the scheduled morning medications can be given to residents except those medications that have a specific time indicated by pharmacy or a physician. A. Record review of the Electronic Medical Record for Resident 1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 1-005.06(D) Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene to prevent the potential for cross contamination while assisting residents who were eating meals in the dining room. This had the potential to affect 9 (Residents 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 123) of 9 sampled residents. The facility census was 23. Findings are: A record review of the facility's Hand Hygiene policy with a review date of 10/26/2024 revealed the purpose of the policy was to prevent and control the spread of infections to the best of the facility's abilities. The procedure stated; 1. Alcohol-based hand rub is recommended in all situations except when hands are visibly soiled or when caring for a resident with certain known infections. 3. Food and Nutrition staff or staff that are handling food must wash hands with soap and water. 6. The facility strives to provide feedback regarding hand hygiene. 7. Supplies to adhere to hand hygiene practices are readily accessible within resident care areas. An observation on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice-SNFABN Form CMS 10055 ( a notice issued to a resident and/or responsible party to inform them that Medicare will no longer pay for their services) and Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage-NOMNC Form CMS 10123 (a notice required to be provided by the facility to beneficiaries (residents) that are receiving nursing services paid for by Medicare Part A explaining that skilled nursing services will no longer be paid for by Medicare and informing the residents of the right to appeal) for discharge from Medicare Part A to 2 (Residents 5 and 125) of 3 residents sampled which resulted in the potential to prevent Resident 5 and 125 from filing an appeal of the discharge from Medicare Part A covered services. The facility census was 23. Findings are: A. Record review of the undated SNF Beneficiary Notification Review for Resident 5 revealed this resident started Medicare Part A skilled services on 10/16/2024. The last date of coverage for part A services occurred…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.09(H)(iii)(2) Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure documentation that resident wounds were evaluated and monitored at least weekly as required for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident 16). This prevented staff from determining if the wound condition was healing or worsening. The facility census was 23. Findings are: Record review of the facility Wound and Skin Care Management dated 11/11/23 revealed that the facility will provide care to promote prevention and management of skin injuries. Weekly evaluations of skin impairment, including measurements, will be completed in the EMR (electronic medical record) (the electronic health record). Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a mandatory comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 4/14/25 for Resident 16 revealed that Resident 16 admitted into the facility on 4/8/25. The MDS revealed that Resident 16 had an unstageable pressure ulcer [a wound/bedsore where…
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 · D2024-12-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.09(H)(i)(3) Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to answer call lights timely for 1 (Resident 1), of 8 sampled residents and failed to ensure residents received routine bathing for 1 (Resident 1), of 8 sampled residents. The facility census was 32. Findings are: Review of the facility supplied Resident Handbook revealed documentation that residents would be assisted with a bath or shower each week or more often if necessary and assistance from the nursing staff may be obtained by pushing the button on the call light or pendent. Review of the resident demographic record revealed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of: multiple sclerosis (which is disease that affects central nervous system causing muscle weakness and vision changes), malnutrition (which is the lack of proper nutrition), type 2 diabetes (which is when the body does not produce enough or properly use insulin resulting in elevated blood sugar…
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 · D2024-12-23 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.10D Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow provider orders for medication administration for 1 (Resident 1) of 2 sampled residents, and failed to ensure proper labeling and priming of an insulin pen for 1 resident (Resident 1) of 1 sampled resident. The facility census was 32. Findings are: A. Review of the resident demographic record revealed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of: hypertensive heart disease (which is high blood pressure), type 2 diabetes (which is when the body does not produce enough or properly use insulin resulting in elevated blood sugar levels), and atrial fibrillation (which is a type of irregular heartbeat). The comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS, a mandatory comprehensive assessment tool that measures the health status of nursing home residents and is used for care planning) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/09/2024 revealed Resident 1 had a Brief Interview for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-05-01 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11A1 Based on record review, observation and interviews; the facility failed to use recipes during meal preparation of all foods to ensure the nutritional adequacy of dishes served. This affected all residents that ate food prepared by the facility kitchen. Current census was 18. Findings are: Observation on 04/30/24 at 9:21 AM in the facility's main kitchen. Observed the Cook-A (C-A) preparing a substituted soup of the day; Ham and Beans. There was no recipe visible. This will be an alternative to scheduled soup of the day. Information was sent out to the satellite areas so that all residents were aware of the change. Interview on 04/30/24 at 9:25 AM with the Certified Dietary Manager (DM). When asked about the recipe C-A was using, DM states the ham and beans were substituted for the [NAME] Wedding Soup that they were to have today. DM confirms that recipes are generated from their Dining Manager (DiningRD) computer program to which the facility is subscribed (this…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-05-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11E Based on record review, observation and interviews; the facility failed to ensure that foods were maintained at the required temperatures to prevent food borne illnesses on the steam table during meal service and failed to remove and destroy foods that were in the refrigerator longer than 7 days. This had the ability to affect all 18 residents who ate food served by the facility kitchen. Current census was 18. Findings are: A. The Nebraska Food Code of 2017 states that foods must be heated to a temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit prior to serving and can then be held for hot holding at a temperature of 135 degrees Fahrenheit until served for up to two hours. (Nebraska Food Guide 2017) Observation on 04/29/24 at 11:50 AM in the satellite kitchen of the Long Term Care (LTC) area: Food products were transferred from the main kitchen area to the satellite kitchen in the LTC area. Once the food products were loaded onto the steam table, all foods were temped. Temperature of the turkey ham and cheese sandwich alternative had a temperature 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 · E2024-05-01 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 obtain the advanced directive for the residents wishes in regards to code status [a resident's choice for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (a lifesaving attempt combination of rescue breathing and chest compressions when someone's heart has stopped) or do not resuscitate (DNR) (a type of advance directive in which a person states that health care providers should not perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (restarting the heart) if his or her heart or breathing stops)] and obtain a signed physician order for DNR for 1 resident (Resident 61) and failed to obtain a signed physician order for DNR for 1 resident (Resident 68). The facility census was 18. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility Advanced Directives form dated [DATE] revealed that the facility will provide all clients (residents) with information regarding their right to formulate an Advance Directive and honor Advanced Directives as executed by the client to the extent allowed under state…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-01 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.12E5; Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12E1b Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store medications administered by different routes separately for 1 resident, (Resident 67) of 7 sampled residents; failed to administer eye drops following current professional standards of care for 1 resident, (Resident 63) of 7 sampled residents; and failed to ensure accountability of a controlled substance for 1 resident (Resident 7) of 7 sampled residents. The facility census was 18. Findings are: A. Medication pass observation was conducted on 04/30/2024 from 11:50 AM to 12:21 PM with Medication Aide-C (MA-C), in which the following was observed: MA-C knocked and entered Resident 67 room. MA-C used keys to unlock the cabinet located just inside the doorway to Resident 67's room and retrieved a drawer like container from the cabinet that contained unit dose cards for medications and two taller cardboard boxes. The cardboard boxes were labeled as Fluticansone Propionate which is a medication that is administered…
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 · D2024-05-01 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 (4) Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide bathing preferences for 1 (Resident 71) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 18. Record review of Resident 71's admission Record dated 05/01/2024 revealed that Resident 71 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident 71's Minimum Data Set (MDS -a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities used to develop a resident's plan of care) dated 04/22/2024 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function) of 10, which indicated the resident was mildly impaired. In an interview on 04/29/24 at 11:23 AM with Resident 71 and spouse revealed they wanted a bath twice weekly and that they have not been receiving that preference. A record review of Resident 71's bathing task report documented in Point Click Care…
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 · D2024-05-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D3(5) Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure routine bowel movements for 1 (Resident 2), of 2 sampled residents. The facility stated census of 18. Review of a facility policy titled Maintaining Bowel and Bladder Function dated 09/21/2023 revealed the Bowel Care Medication regimen will be implemented for all patients unless otherwise directed by the patient's provider to prevent or manage constipation. Review of a facility document labeled Bowel Care Protocol and dated 04/30/2024 revealed Resident 2 had gone five days without a bowel movement. The document also stated: A. on day three of no bowel movement - Milk of Magnesia 30 milliliters by mouth one time. B. on day four of now bowel movement - Bisacodyl 10 milligram suppository one time. C. if no stool with in four hours of having Dulcolax, re-evaluate to rule out impaction and administer one of the following: Fleets enema on time, or Magnesium Citrate 4 ounces by mouth. If no results, contact the physician to update on client's bowel status. Review of a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.09D7b Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to update and or change interventions to prevent falls for 1 resident (Resident 2), out of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 18. Findings are: Review of facility policy titled Fall Risk Evaluation and Post fall Procedures not dated revealed under procedure to review and update care plan if a resident falls. Review of facility supplied document labeled Post-Fall Checklist dated 02/12/2023 revealed item four, care plan which is a written interdisciplinary comprehensive plan detailing how to provide quality care for a resident, updated post-fall with new fall in focus statement, new intervention, and goals. A review of an admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident 2 on 05/04/2023 with diagnoses of dementia which is the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities, with mood disturbance which is noticeable disruptions in someone's emotions, and anxiety which is feelings of worry, anxiety,…
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 · D2024-05-01 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary 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 Licsensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on record review, observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that medications used together will not lead to adverse consequences, and that all medications had adequate indications for use with an appropriate diagnosis code. This affected 1 (Resident 3) of 5 sampled residents. Census was 18. Findings are: A. The National Capital of Poison Control posted an article entitled Trazodone: Side Effects, Interactions, and Overdose on their website accessed and read May 2024. Taking trazodone with other medications that increase serotonin levels, such as dextromethorphan, tricyclic antidepressants, tryptophan or 5-HTP, and buspirone, can cause a potentially life-threatening condition called serotonin syndrome (serotonin syndrome is a potentially life-threatening drug reaction. It causes the body to have too much serotonin, a chemical produced by some nerve cells.). Trazodone commonly causes drowsiness, which may be increased when taken with other…
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
$10,296 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $10,296 — penalty dated 2025-05-01
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TABITHA, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/22/2022 |
| EVENTIDE NEBRASKA SENIOR LIVING LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/10/2024 |
| BOCK, JODEE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| BRANDT, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| BYE, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| FISCHBACH, TYLER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| GULBRANSON, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| JOHNSON, VIKKI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| LARSON-CASSELTON, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| LEE, JUDITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| LUNAK, BRANDON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2026 |
| SCHAFER, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| SELJEVOLD, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| SWENSON, KARLA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| RIEWER, JON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/10/2024 |
| EVENTIDE | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/19/2024 |
| ACTON, SHERRILL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/22/2024 |
| OHE, DARIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/22/2024 |
| VAN PELT, TONYA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2026 |
| HERVERT, MITCHELL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/10/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $148K 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 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
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 285307. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-01, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.