Carl T Curtis Health Education Center Nursing Home
923 Senior Circle, Macy, NE 68039 · Government - Federal · 25 certified beds · (402) 837-5381 Medicaid only — no Medicare
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 (F0605) — 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 | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 5 to 4 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 | 15.7% | 19.0% | 15.4% | typical |
| 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 | 1.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| 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 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.3% | 18.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 1.2% | 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 | 4.1% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.5% | 25.9% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 51.8% | 20.7% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
* 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.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 25 beds and averages 22.5 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.15 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.01 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.35 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.53 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.15 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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 · F2026-01-29 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespreadImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to conduct ongoing reviews for antibiotic stewardship and ensure that medical criteria was used for infection surveillance. This had the potential to affect all residents that resided in the facility. The facility census was 23.Findings are:Review of a facility policy Infection Prevention and Control Program with a revised date of October 2018, Section 8 revealed: Antibiotic Stewardship a. Culture reports, sensitivity data, and antibiotic usage reviews are included in surveillance activities. b. Medical Criteria and standardized definitions of infections are used to help recognize and manage infections. c. Antibiotic usage is evaluated and practitioners are provided feedback on reviews. Review of a policy Antibiotic Stewardship-Review and Surveillance of Antibiotic Use and Outcomes with a revised date of December 2016 revealed: Policy Statement Antibiotic usage and outcome data will be collected and documented using a facility approved antibiotic tracking form. The data will be used to guide decisions for improvement 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 · D2026-01-29 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to identify and monitor specific target behaviors for the use of antipsychotic medications [a group of medications used to treat symptoms of psychosis, such as hallucinations and delusions] for 2 (Residents 4 and 20) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 23. Findings are:A.Record review of a facility policy entitled Behavioral assessment, Intervention and Monitoring dated 2001 revealed the following information: Policy statement: Behavioral symptoms will be identified using facility approved behavioral screening tools and the comprehensive assessment. General Guidelines:1.Behavior is the response of an individual to a wide variety of factors. These factors may include medical, physical, functional, psychosocial, emotional, psychiatric or environmental causes. a. Behavior is regulated by the brain and is influenced by experiences, personality traits, environment, 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 · D2026-01-29 · 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 interviews, the facility failed to provide a written reason for the transfer to the hospital for Resident 24. The facility census was 23. Findings are:Record review of Resident 24's Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used to determine a residents functional capabilities and helps nursing home staff identify health problems) dated 12/19/25 identified the facility re-admitted Resident 24 on 12/9/25 with diagnoses of Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD), Diabetes Mellitus (DM), acquired absence of right leg above knee, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of sacral region, infection following a procedure, unspecified, initial; acquired absence of left leg below knee. The MDS identified that Resident 24 had moderately impaired cognition. Functional abilities were noted as independent with eating, dependent with toileting hygiene, bathing, upper and lower body dressing, putting on and taking off footwear, and personal hygiene. 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 · Dcited before2026-01-29 · 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
License Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18(D)Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a staff member performed hand hygiene before donning gloves (putting on) and failed to clean the rubber stopper on an insulin flex pen (a pre-filled disposable device used to inject insulin) prior to administering insulin for Resident 5. The facility had a census of 23.Findings are:A record review of the facility Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy from the Nursing Services Policy and Procedure Manual for Long-Term Care, 2001 MED-PASS, Inc. revealed the following:Administrative Practices to Promote Hand HygieneAll personnel are expected to adhere to hand hygiene policies and practices to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors.Indications for hand hygiene.Hand washing is indicated: Immediately before touching a resident.Before performing an aseptic (free from contamination caused by harmful bacteria, viruses or other microorganisms) task, for example, placing an indwelling device (a medical instrument inserted into 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 · F2024-10-31 · tag F0923 — widespreadHave enough outside ventilation via a window or mechanical ventilation, or both.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 12-007.04 D Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that ventilation systems were operational in resident bathrooms in 21 (Rooms 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25) of 21 occupied resident bathrooms. The facility census was 21. Findings are: An observation on 10/30/24 between 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM with the facility Maintenance Director revealed that the ventilation system was not functional and would not draw a 1 ply square of toilet paper to the surface of the ventilation cover in resident bathrooms in resident rooms 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. Interview on 10/30/24 at 9:05 AM with the Maintenance Director confirmed that the ventilation system did not draw a 1 square ply of toilet paper in resident bathrooms in resident rooms 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. The Maintenance Director confirmed that the ventilation systems had not been checked for draw and that there was no documentation…
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 · D2024-10-31 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number NAC 12-006.04 (F)(i)(5) Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to notify the medical provider when a prescribed medication was not given for 6 days for 1 (Resident 7) of 2 sampled residents. The facility had a total census of 21 residents. Findings are: A record review of policy entitled Nursing Standards of Practice Policy for Documentation dated 2020 revealed: If a medication/treatment is not available, document the attempts made to obtain the item. If unsuccessful, contact the Director of Nursing, physician, or pharmacist for assistance. A record review of Resident 7's Census Report revealed Resident 7 was admitted on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 7's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 10/7/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a brief screener that aids in detecting cognitive impairment) score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 revealed that Resident 7 was cognitively intact.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-31 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number NAC 12-006.10(D) Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication was available for 6 days resulting in a significant medication error for 1 (Resident 7) of 2 sampled residents. The facility had a total census of 21 residents. Findings are: A record review of policy entitled Nursing Standards of Practice Policy for Documentation dated 2020 revealed: If a medication/treatment is not available, document the attempts made to obtain the item. If unsuccessful, contact the Director of Nursing, physician, or pharmacist for assistance. A record review of Resident 7's Census Report revealed Resident 7 was admitted on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 7's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 10/7/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a brief screener that aids in detecting cognitive impairment) score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 revealed that Resident 7 was cognitively intact.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 12-006.18(B) Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to don (put on) and doff (take off) gowns during cares and treatments of a resident with a supra-pubic indwelling catheter (a tube placed in the abdomen to drain urine from the bladder to a bag) per Enhanced Barrier Precaution Protocol for 1 of 1 Residents (Resident 1) observed for the care of the catheter. The facility identified a census of 21 residents. Findings are: Record review of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) Policy dated 2022 revealed the following: It is the policy of this facility that Enhanced Barrier Precautions, in addition to Standard and Contact Precautions, will be implemented during high-contact resident care activities when caring for resident that have an increased risk for acquiring a Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms (MDRO, bacteria that resist treatment with more than one antibiotic) such as a residents with wounds, indwelling medical devices (supra-pubic indwelling catheter) or residents with infection or colonization with an MDRO. The purpose 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 · D2023-12-21 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12B Based on record review and interview; the facility Pharmacist failed to identify and report medication irregularities related to medication that did not have a diagnoses for 2 (Residents 4 and 9) of 5 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 19. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility's Drug Regimen Review Policy/Procedure revised September 25, 2015 revealed the following: -1. b) DRR (Drug Regimen Review) activities include but are not limited to the following: -a) A written diagnosis or indication supports each medication order. -c) Indications for use and therapeutic goals are consistent with current medical literature and clinical practice guidelines. B. Record review of Resident 4's Order Summary sheet dated December 2023 revealed the following medications did not have a written indication for use: -Midodrine (medication used to treat low blood pressure) 10 mg (milligrams) Tab (tablet) 1 tablet by mouth 3 times a day as need if systolic blood pressure is less than (Indications for Use: Prophylaxis)(action taken…
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 · D2023-12-21 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12B Based on record review and interview; the facility staff failed to ensure 1 resident (Resident 9) of 5 sampled resident had a rational for the use of multiple antidepressant medications. The facility staff identified a census of 19. Findings are: A record review of the Drug Regimen Review Policy/Procedure, Redlers Long Term Care Pharmacy revised on September 25, 2015 revealed the following information: -DRR(Drug Regimen Review) activities include but are not limited to the following: -f) Duplication of medication orders include a written rationale for the duplication. -Nursing facility regulations require that duplicate drug therapy be avoided. This is any drug that duplicates a particular drug effect on the resident. Record review of Resident 9's Order Summary Report printed on 12-19-2023 revealed Resident 9 had orders for the following antidepressant medications: -Duloxetine 60 mg (milligrams), 1 capsule by mouth every day with a related diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent with severe with psychotic (related to or…
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 · D2023-12-21 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12B Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that 1 resident (Resident 9) had rational for the use of 2 antipsychotic medications and failed to have the clinical indications of medication use for 2 residents (Resident 8 and 17) of 5 residents sampled. The facility identified a census of 19. Findings are: A. Record review of the Drug Regimen Review Policy/Procedure revised September 25, 2015 revealed the following information: -f) Duplication of medication orders include a written rationale for the duplication. -Nursing facility regulations require that duplicate drug therapy be avoided. This is any drug that duplicates a particular drug effect on the resident. B. Record review of Resident 9's Order Summary Sheet with active order as of 12-19-2023 revealed Resident 9 ordered medication included the following -Quetiapine (a antipsychotic medication) 100 milligrams (mg) tablet. 1 tablet by mouth 3 times a day for a related diagnoses of mental disorder, not…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in NE
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 28A065. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-29, 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.