St. Jane de Chantal
2200 South 52nd Street, Lincoln, NE 68506 · Non profit - Corporation · 103 certified beds · (402) 413-3607 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.9% | 19.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.6% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 8.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.3% | 4.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.8% | 4.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.4% | 18.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 34.7% | 19.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.6% | 4.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.7% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.1% | 20.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.5% | 75.9% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.1% | 20.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.9% | 11.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.67 | 1.81 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.52 | 1.92 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
62.9% 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 151 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 53.3% 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 135 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | 62.9%CMS range 55.6–69.1 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 6.9–13.8 | 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 | 53.3% | 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 | 52.6% | 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 | 54.8% | 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 | 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 | 0.7% | 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 | 4.9% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.9–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.82 | 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 103 beds and averages 78.5 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 24 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 7.36 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.83 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.05 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 6.75 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.60 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.92 to 1.61 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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
Licensed Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11(E)Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the kitchen staff completed hand hygiene for 15 seconds and failed to ensure no cross contamination to prevent foodborne illness during meal preparation. This had the potential to affect 67 residents in the facility. The facility census was 80.Findings are:Observation of meal preparation on 01/06/2026 from 7:30 AM to 8:40 AM revealed the following:At 7:35 AM an observation of [NAME] D preparing the noon meal with gloves on puts all premeasured ingredients into a pot to cook and then mixes the hamburger, ground turkey into another pot and then takes soiled dishes to the dirty dish room. [NAME] D removed gloves and completed hand hygiene for 12 seconds, wipes sink, shuts off water and continued to dry hands with the same soiled paper towel. At 7:45 AM [NAME] F while preparing French toast with gloves on, picked up utensils and other items, then picked up French toast with the same soiled gloves on. [NAME] F removed gloves, completed hand hygiene and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-08 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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(G)Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure informed consent was obtained before applying a physical restraint for 1 resident (Resident 2) of 1 sampled for restraints. The facility census was 80.Findings are:An observation on 01/06/2026 at 10:42 AM revealed Resident 2 wearing mitten restraints (padded, soft gloves used in healthcare to prevent patients-usually with a mental deficit-from pulling out vital tubes, such as tracheostomy [a surgically created hole in the neck to create an airway], catheter [a flexible tube inserted into the body to drain fluid, such as into the bladder to drain urine], or feeding tubes) on both hands.An observation on 01/06/2026 at 2:50 PM revealed Resident 2 resting on their back in bed with mitten restraints on both hands.An observation on 01/07/2026 at 7:25 AM revealed Resident 2 resting on their back on bed with mitten restraints on both hands.A record review of Resident 2's undated demographics…
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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete a new Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR- a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) for Resident 11 when new diagnoses were received. This affected 1 of 2 residents reviewed for PASARR completion. The facility reported a census of 80. Findings are:A record review of Resident 11's Face Sheet dated 01/08/2026 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE].A record review of Resident 11's admission history and physical (H&P) dated 04/07/2020 revealed the resident had a diagnosis of depression. There was no mention of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)-a mental health condition triggered by experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event) or Intellectual Developmental Disabilities (IDD)- involves significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior.A record review of Resident 11's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized,…
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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to complete a Preadmission screening and resident review(PASARR)- that is a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care. A level 1 screening is a mandatory preliminary assessment for anyone entering a Medicaid certified nursing facility to quickly identify if they have a serious mental illness, Intellectual Disability, or Developmental Disability as defined by Medicaid. The facility failed to complete a PASARR for one (Resident 20) of two sampled residents. The facility census was 80.The findings are: Record review Resident 20's face sheet revealed admission date of 10/24/2025. Record Review of Resident 20's admission minimum data set (MDS) (is a standardized federally mandated assessment tool used in nursing homes to comprehensively evaluate the resident's health, functional abilities and needs) dated 10/19/2025 revealed the following: Section C showed a Brief Interview for Mental…
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 · D2026-01-08 · 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 12-006.09(H)Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to complete a wheelchair screening to ensure proper positioning for one (Resident 11) of one sampled resident. The facility identified a census of 80.Findings are: Record Review of Resident 11's Minimum Data System (MDS) (is a standardized, federally mandated assessment tool used in nursing homes to comprehensively evaluate resident's health, functional abilities and needs) dated 10/08/2025 reveled Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) (a quick 15-point cognitive screening tool used in healthcare to assess orientation, short-term memory and recall) Resident 11's score was a 15, indicating the residents cognition was intact. Section D of MDS revealed Resident 11 feels down, trouble sleeping, little energy, poor appetite, and trouble concentrating. The MDS also revealed a severity score of 10 on a Patient Health Questionnaire-9(PHQ-9) (which is a brief self-administered tool used for screening, diagnosing, and monitoring depression severity by asking for nine…
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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 identify a history of trauma and failed to follow the recommended behavior therapy for 1 (Resident 11) of 1 sampled resident. The facility identified a census of 80.Findings are: An interview with Resident 11 on 1/05/2026 at 11:40 AM revealed that when the resident was asked if they had a history of trauma, the resident stated that the resident's father drank a lot and molested the me as a child. Record review of Resident 11's face sheet revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with the following diagnosis, bilateral knee pain, osteoarthritis, heart failure. There was no mention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Record review of Resident 11's admission history and physical dated 4/07/2020 revealed no diagnosis or mention of PTSD. Record review of Resident 11's preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) (a process which requires that all applicants to Medicaid-certified nursing facilities be given a preliminary assessment to determine…
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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and 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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to identify or provide recommended behavioral health services for 1 (Resident 11) of 1 sampled resident with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Intellectual Disability. The facility identified a census of 80. Findings are: An interview with Resident 11 on 1/05/2026 at 11:40 AM revealed that when the resident was asked if they had a history of trauma, the resident stated that the resident's father drank a lot and molested me as a child. Record review of Resident 11's face sheet revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with the following diagnosis, bilateral knee pain, osteoarthritis, and heart failure. There is no mention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Record review of Resident 11's admission history and physical dated 4/07/2020 revealed no diagnosis or mention of PTSD. Record review of Resident 11's preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) (a process which requires that all applicants to Medicaid-certified nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices related to hand hygiene (HH-cleaning the hands with soap and water or the use of an alcohol-based hand rub [ABHR] to help prevent the spread of infection) and use of personal protective equipment (PPE-special equipment, including gloves, gown, masks, and eye protection, worn to prevent exposure to hazards such as infectious materials) were followed during catheter (a flexible tube inserted into the body to drain fluid, such as into the bladder to drain urine) care for 1 (Resident 2) of 5 sampled residents for catheter care, and during wound care for 2 (Resident 2 and Resident 61) of 8 residents sampled for wound care. The facility census was 80.Findings are: A record review of the facility's Infection Prevention: Hand Hygiene policy last reviewed 06/04/2025 revealed that staff should use alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) or wash their hands under the following…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.09(I) Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure interventions were followed for 1 (Resident 22) of 1 sampled resident to prevent potential accidents. The facility census was 83. Findings are: A record review of Resident 22's Clinical Summary Report dated 9/12/2024 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident had diagnoses of chronic diastolic congestive heart failure (CHF), age-related osteoporosis (weak bones), Post COVID-19, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy (uncontrolled blood sugar that affects the nerves in the arms, hands, kegs, and feet), weakness, and cigarette nicotine dependence. A record review of Resident 22's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used to develop a resident's care plan) dated 7/30/2024 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a score of a residents cognitive abilities) of 15 of 15 which…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10 Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors while administering insulin (a medication used to reduce the amount of blood sugar in the blood of residents with diabetes) to 1 (Resident 56) of 1 residents sampled. The facility census was 83 at the time of survey. Findings are: Record review of the facility's policy titled Medication Safety with a last reviewed date of 7/22/24 revealed that the short acting insulin administration schedule was based around meal delivery times. Record review of undated admission Record revealed that Resident 56 was admitted into the facility on 6/19/2020. Record review of Resident 56's list of diagnoses revealed a primary diagnosis of incomplete quadriplegia (paralysis that affects all of a person's limbs) due to spinal cord lesion between 1st and 4th cervical vertebra. Also listed were respiratory failure and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (a condition that occurs when the body does not produce enough insulin or doesn't…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.18(B) and (D) Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene (cleaning) and glove changes when going from a contaminated process to a clean process during wound care for 2 (Residents 3 and 77) of 5 sampled residents, failed to ensure 1 (Resident 38) of 6 sampled resident's mechanical in-exsufflator (a machine used to help produce a cough) circuit was changed monthly, and failed to rinse the nebulizer (neb)(a machine used to deliver liquid medication to the lungs) kit after each use and change weekly for 1 (Resident 56) of 6 sampled residents to prevent cross-contamination. The facility census was 83. Findings are: A. A record review of Resident 3's Transfer/Discharge/Active Orders dated 9/12/2024 revealed the resident had a wound care order on the right anterior (in front) foot wound for staff to apply a Mepilex (border dressing); Xeroform (petroleum-based gauge wound dressing) dressing on Mondays,…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DONGILLI, PAUL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/16/2016 |
| HEDDERMAN, MICHAEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/11/2019 |
| CASSELS, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/30/2022 |
| COFFEY, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/29/2023 |
| DOANE, HEIDI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/29/2023 |
| DOUGLAS, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/17/2020 |
| ESSAY, PHILLIP | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/29/2023 |
| GANNON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/25/2019 |
| HAYES, ADAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/27/2024 |
| LEMPKA, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/27/2017 |
| LIGHTHALL, MARIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/30/2022 |
| MCKIERNAN, ALEXANDER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/29/2023 |
| NIETFELDT, BRADLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/21/2016 |
| PERKINS, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/27/2017 |
| PUGLIESE, LAUREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/25/2019 |
| SPETHMAN, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/12/2018 |
| SULLIVAN, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2013 |
| VASEK, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/23/2015 |
| VOKOUN, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2021 |
| WALKER, SARAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/30/2022 |
| WILWERDING, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/30/2022 |
| ZACH, TERENCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/17/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 22 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.
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 285004. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-08, 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.