Holdrege Memorial Homes, Inc
1320 11th Avenue, Holdrege, NE 68949 · Non profit - Corporation · 94 certified beds · (308) 995-8631 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 4 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 25.8% | 19.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.2% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 9.0% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 12.3% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.9% | 18.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.0% | 19.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.4% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.8% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.7% | 20.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 2.0% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 75.9% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.1% | 20.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.4% | 11.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.10 | 1.81 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.57 | 1.92 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
42.9% 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 77 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 44.6% 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 42.9%CMS range 34.4–51.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 6.1–14.9 | 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 | 44.6% | 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 | 31.3% | 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 | 39.8% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 1.1% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.8%CMS range 4.4–13.2 | 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 94 beds and averages 73.7 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 20 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.56 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 3.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.01 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.55 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-08-05 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — widespreadDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.04(A)(iii)(2)(c)Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.04(A)(iii)(3)Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that required registry checks (Child/adult abuse and neglect central registry checks, maintained by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), identify individuals with substantiated cases of abuse or neglect) were completed for new staff prior to working in the facility for 5 of 6 sampled staff. This had the potential for residents to be at risk of abuse and neglect. The facility census was 73. Findings are: A.Record review of the facility policy titled Abuse and Neglect Prevention Protocol dated 1/10/19 revealed that it is the facility policy to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation from occurring. The section titled Screening revealed that the facility will not knowingly employ or otherwise engage individuals who have been found guilty of abuse, neglect exploitation, misappropriation of property, or mistreatment by a court of law; have a finding entered into the 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 · F2025-08-05 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that the Direct Care Daily Staffing posting (a required daily posting of facility nurse staffing information) included the required actual hours worked for each staff category. The facility census was 73. Findings are:Record review of the undated facility policy titled Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers revealed that the facility will post the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents on a daily basis for each shift. The information recorded on the form shall include the actual time worked during that shift for each category and type of nursing staff. Observation on 7/31/25 at 8:23 AM on the wall between the facility Activity Room and Greenhouse Cafe revealed that the Report of Nursing Staff Directly Responsible for Resident Care was posted. The report was dated 7/31/25 and revealed a census of 74 residents. The report revealed day shift staff consisting of 1 Registered Nurse (RN), 3 Licensed Professional Nurses (LPN), and 10 nurse aides (NA). The 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-08-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 1-005.06(D) Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.18(B)Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.18(C) Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that pre-employment health screens were completed for 1 of 6 sampled staff to prevent the potential for communicable diseases, failed to maintain fingernails while working with exposed foods that affected all facility residents, failed to ensure oxygen delivery devices were stored in a sanitary manner for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 37 and 46), and failed to ensure the required PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) was available and used during care for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 2 and 85). The facility census was 73. Findings are:A. Record review of the undated facility policy titled Employee Orientation and Training revealed that employee orientation will be provided in two stages for new hires. General Orientation will be provided to complete facility and regulatory employment information and forms. Department Orientation will be used to provide…
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 · E2025-08-05 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility failed to ensure that all Minimum Data Set transmissions for each resident were submitted within 14 days after completion. This affected 7 of 7 residents (Residents 20, 53, 8, 55, 62, 68 and 70) sampled. The facility census was 73. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that all Minimum Data Set assessments (MDS - information which provides a comprehensive overview of a resident's functional status, diagnoses, and treatments used for resident care planning and quality monitoring in the long term care setting) was submitted within 14 days of completing the resident assessments. This affected 7 residents (Residents 20, 53, 8, 55, 62, 68 and 70) of 7 residents sampled. The facility census was 73. Findings are: Record review of the undated facility policy MDS Policy (in regulation with CMS guidelines) revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure accurate and timely completion of the MDS in compliance with federal and state regulations for all residents of the facility. The procedures were as follows; 1. Resident will be assessed per the MDS…
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 · E2025-08-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.09(E)(ii) Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.09(E)(iii) Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.09(E)(iv) Based on Record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plans had person-centered goals, measurable objectives, and interventions related to respiratory infections, nutrition, diabetes, resident choices, urinary tract infections and other infections, resident fluid restrictions, and self-directed care wishes for 4 of 18 sampled residents (Residents 68, 55, 9, and 2). The facility census was 73.Findings are:A. Review of the progress notes revealed that on 12/27/2024 Resident 68 was transferred to the emergency room via ambulance and admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of pneumonia. Resident 68 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. An entry on 01/10/2025 revealed that the primary care physician had changed the current antibiotic, Bactrim, to cefdinir to treat Resident 68’s pneumonia. An entry on 01/17/2025…
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 · D2025-08-05 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure 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 175NAC 12-006.05(E) Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that the risk versus benefit information for 2 of 5 sampled residents, (Resident 50 and 72), were discussed to the resident and resident representative for any psychotropic medications and prior to starting any psychotropic medications which describe in plain language the risks, benefits, options, and alternatives of the medication being prescribed. The facility census was 73. Findings are:Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the risk versus benefit information for 2 of 5 sampled residents, (Resident 50 and 72), was given to the resident and resident representative for any psychotropic medications and prior to starting any psychotropic medications (medications are drugs that affect the mind, emotions, and behavior) which describe in plain language the risks, benefits, options, and alternatives of the medication being prescribed. Findings are: A. Record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-05 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 notify the ombudsman (a state appointed advocate for residents of nursing homes) of resident discharge for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident 82) as required. The facility census was 73. Findings are:Record review of the undated facility policy titled Transfer and Discharge from the Facility Policy revealed that each resident has the right to remain in the facility and not transfer or discharge a resident. The facility forwards a copy of all discharge notices to the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman and required state agencies. The facility staff will document in the resident's record the date that a copy of the discharge notice was sent to the representative of the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman and identified state agencies per requirements. Record review of the discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a mandatory comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) for Resident 82 dated 6/5/25 revealed that Resident 82 admitted…
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 · D2025-08-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number NAC 175 12-006.09(H)(iii)Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure wounds were comprehensively assessed on a routine basis and failed to ensure a wound had treatment orders for 1 resident (Resident 10) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 73.Findings are:A record review of a document titled Best Practices for Wound Assessment and Documentation dated 04/17/2025 by the Wound Care Education Institute revealed the foundational elements of wound assessment should include precise anatomical location, classification and etiology, accurate wound measurements, wound bed characteristics, wound edge and margin assessment, exudate (drainage) characteristics, peri wound (skin surrounding the wound) status, and pain and symptom reporting.A record review of facility's undated policy titled Skin Assessment and Treatment Policy revealed it is the policy of the facility to routinely monitor, assess, and manage residents' skin integrity. All assessments and treatments…
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 · D2025-08-05 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure coordination of care of dialysis for 1 resident (Resident 2) of 1 sampled residents. The facility census was 73.Findings are:A record review of facility's undated policy titled Policy and Procedures revealed it was the policy of the facility to ensure that residents who require dialysis are monitored and have care needs related to dialysis. Under section 3, monitoring and observation is to occur upon return for dialysis and the resident was assessed for general condition and tolerance of dialysis. Under section 5, Nurses will document date and time of transport to and from dialysis, resident condition before and after dialysis and all communication with dialysis providers and physicians will be documented in the resident's chart.A record review of an Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident 2 on 11/05/2024 with a diagnosis of stage 3 chronic kidney disease (a condition of moderate kidney damage and reduced kidney function 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 · D2024-12-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(H) as directed in the Adult Protective Services Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-372. Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to report incidents resulting in serious bodily injury within 2 hours for 2 residents, Resident 2 and Resident 6, of 4 residents sampled for reporting and for 1 resident, Resident 2, of 4 residents sampled for reporting. The facility census was 71. Findings are: A. A record review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect Prevention Protocol revised May 2024 revealed that the facility was required to report a reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect to the state agency within 2 hours of forming the suspicion if there was a serious bodily injury, and within 24 hours of forming the suspicion if there was not a serious bodily injury. B. A record review of Resident 2's Continuity of Care Document created 12/12/2024 revealed Resident 2 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses of a fractured right fibula (the bone on the outer side of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.18(B) Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews: the facility failed to store oxygen tubing and CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) (a machine that is used to keep airways open while sleeping) mask/tubing in a manner to prevent the potential for cross contamination for 5 (Residents 7, 23, 59, 53, 42) of 6 sampled residents. The facility census was 71. Findings are: A record review of the undated facility policy titled Storage of Medications and Treatment Supplies revealed: -When not in use oxygen tubing should be placed in the bag that is attached to the resident's oxygen concentrator. -No mention of CPAP supply storage was located on the policy. A. An observation on 7/9/24 at 8:53 AM revealed that Resident 7's oxygen tubing was not in use and was underneath the handle of the oxygen concentrator at the end of the bed. A bag was attached to the concentrator and was empty. A record review of Resident 7's Order summary dated 7/08/24 revealed the following…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-11 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — patternEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.4(B)(ii)(1) Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 12 hours of continuing education had been completed for 3 Nursing Assistants (NA-A, NA-C and NA-D) of 5 reviewed employees that had been employed more than one year. This had the potential to affect all residents in house. The facility identified a census of 71. Findings Are: A record review of continuing education hours for NA (Nurse Aide)-A, hired on 3/21/2011, revealed a total of zero hours had been completed for the last one year, covering 3/21/23 through 3/21/24. A record review of continuing education hours for NA-C, hired on 7/6/2022, revealed a total of 11.75 hours had been completed for the last one year, covering 7/6/23 through 7/6/24. A record review of continuing education hours for NA-D, hired on 4/3/2023, revealed a total of 9.25 hours had been completed for the last one year, covering 4/3/23 through 4/3/24. A record review of the undated facility policy titled Training Requirements revealed it contained the following guidelines related to training…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-11 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D6 (7) Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a Metered Dose Inhaler (Nebulizer), (a machine that turns a liquid medication into a vapor for inhalation) was cleaned after each use to prevent the potential for cross contamination for 1 (Resident 58) of 1 sampled resident. The facility census was 71. Findings are. A record review of the facility's undated policy titled Administering Medications through a Metered Dose Inhaler (Nebulizer) revealed the following: - the purpose of the policy was to provide guidelines for the safe administration of inhaled medications, - the resident has the right to have their medications in the right dose, - when the dosing is complete, rinse the nebulizer equipment in warm water. A record review of Resident 58's Face Sheet dated 7/10/24 revealed the resident was admitted into the facility on 4/26/24 with a diagnosis of Asthma (a disease that causes the breathing passages to swell and /or close off). A record review of Resident 58's Order Summary dated 7/10/24…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-08-29 for 18 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MORIARTY, KEVIN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/30/2001 |
| ECKLUN, MIKE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2021 |
| JOHNSON, RUTH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2019 |
| KRING, MARGARET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2015 |
| MCCLYMONT, PHILIP | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2015 |
| OLSON, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2021 |
| OMAN, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2020 |
| STUTE, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2013 |
| KLEIN, VICKIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| MCCORMICK, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| NELSEN, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| WENDELL, CYNTHIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NE
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Nebraska Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 285067. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-05, 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.