Heritage of Bel Air
1203 North 13th Street, Norfolk, NE 68701 · Non profit - Corporation · 112 certified beds · (402) 371-4991 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (36% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 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 | 10.2% | 19.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 5.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 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 | 2.7% | 4.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.8% | 18.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.6% | 19.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.8% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.8% | 25.9% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.8% | 20.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.2% | 75.9% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 9.6% | 20.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.2% | 11.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.06 | 1.81 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.73 | 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.
38.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 93 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 31.6% 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 57 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 38.9%CMS range 29.5–50.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.1%CMS range 5.4–13.3 | 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 | 31.6% | 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 | 31.6% | 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 | 28.1% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 4.2–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.33 | 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 112 beds and averages 105.0 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.94 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.87 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.18 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-07-25 · 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 12-006.09D7 Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to implement interventions to protect Resident 153 from aspiration (breathing foreign material into the lungs) and/or choking as a puree diet was not provided in accordance with physician's orders. In addition, the facility failed to determine causal factors, to develop and/or revise interventions and failed to implement assessed fall prevention interventions for Residents 79 and 88. The sample size was 10 and the facility census was 101. Findings are: A. Review of Resident 153's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 10/27/22 revealed diagnoses of previous stroke, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The following was assessed regarding Resident 153: -cognition was moderately impaired; -no behaviors identified; -required supervision and set-up assistance with eating; -weight loss…
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 · F2025-07-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
S483.60(i) Food safety requirements. The facility must - S483.60(i)(2) - Store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This REQUIREMENT is not met as evidenced by LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.11E Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to serve food in a manner to prevent potential food borne illnesses. The facility failed to ensure bare hands were not used to touch ready-to-eat food items. This practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility who ate meals from the kitchen. The facility staff identified a census of 98. Findings are:A. Review of the 7/21/2016 version of the Food Code, based on the United States Food and Drug Administration Food Code and used as an authoritative reference for food service sanitation practices, revealed the following: 81-2,272.10*(Replaces 2013 Food Code 3-301.11 (B), (C), (D), and (E) Preventing Contamination from Hands). -Except when washing fruits and vegetables, food employees shall minimize bare hand and arm contact with…
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 · E2025-07-31 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
S483.60(d) Food and drink Each resident receives and the facility provides- S483.60(d)(1) Food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance; S483.60(d)(2) Food and drink that is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11D Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to serve room trays at a palatable temperature. The sample size was 9 and the facility census was 98. Findings are: Review of the Nebraska Food Code effective 3/8/12 revealed the following:-refrigerated potentially hazardous food (time/temperature control for safety food) would be at a temperature of 41 degrees or below when received, and-potentially hazardous food that was cooked to a temperature and for a time specified and received hot would be at a temperature of 135 degrees or above. During an interview on 7/28/25 at 10:20 AM Resident 66 reported that they sometimes eat meals in their room and the food is cold most of the time. The following observations were made on 7/29/25:-at 12:04 PM the hot…
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 · D2025-07-31 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
S483.45(f) Medication Errors. The facility must ensure that its- S483.45(f)(1) Medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater;This REQUIREMENT is not met as evidenced by Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10(D)Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent (%). Observations of 25 medications administered revealed 2 errors resulting in an error rate of 8%. The medication errors were related to 1 (Resident 6) of 5 residents sampled. The facility identified a census of 98.Findings are:A. Review of the facility policy Medication Errors with a revision date of 2/18 revealed the facility was to ensure residents were free of medication error rates of 5% or greater. A medication error was defined as the observed or identified preparation or administration medications which were not in accordance with the prescriber's order or the manufacturers specifications regarding the preparation and administration of the medication. B. Review of the Prefilled Insulin Pen Competency Form used by 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 · Dcited before2025-07-31 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.18(B)Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to implement the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE-items such as gowns and gloves that are worn to protect care givers during the provision of care and to protect other residents from being exposed to potential communicable disease) during the provision of care for Resident 35. The facility census was 98.Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy [NAME] Senior Living (VSL) Policy for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) dated 4/12/24 revealed the following:-EBP referred to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug resistant organisms (germ that is resistant to medications) (MDRO) that required the use of gowns and glove use during high contact resident cares,-EBP would be initiated on residents with an infection with a targeted MDRO.-PPE for EBP is only necessary when performing high-contact care activities in resident room and spa-room.…
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 before2024-07-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09(l)(i) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to implement assessed fall interventions, and to revise and/or develop new interventions for the prevention of ongoing falls for Resident 12. The facility census was 101 and the sample size was 5. Findings are: A. Review of the facility Fall Prevention Management Standards with revision date of 1/2024 revealed all residents were to be reviewed during pre-admission/admission to determine their risk for falls. When a resident was identified at risk for falls, the resident's care plan was to be updated to reflect the potential safety hazard. Approaches/ interventions were to be implemented and maintained related to identified areas of risk. If a fall was to occur, staff were to investigate and collect factual evidence related to the fall. A Root Clause Analysis was to be completed to find out what happened and to determine what could be done to prevent it from happening again. B. Review of Resident 12's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool…
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 before2024-07-30 · 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 12-006.09 Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to have physician documented, resident specific clinical rationale for not attempting gradual dose reductions for Resident 7's psychoactive (medications that affect brain activity associated with mental processes and behavior) medication. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 101. Findings are: Review of the facility management standard Psychoactive Medications and Medication Regimen Review dated 6/2024 revealed the following: -Each psychoactive medication had an appropriate diagnosis to support the use of the medication. -Gradual Dose Reductions were required for all psychoactive medications. -The interdisciplinary Team acted as the resident advocate to ensure psychoactive medications were necessary, to ensure quality of life for each resident. -The facility utilized appropriate resources to assist in managing psychoactive medications that were prescribed for residents, including the attending physician, the medical director as needed, the consulting pharmacist, 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 · Dcited before2024-07-30 · 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) Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18 (D) Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms [MDRO's]) during wound care and perform hand hygiene at appropriate intervals during high contact care activities for Resident 30, and to correctly use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to prevent the potential spread of Covid-19 related to resident 37. The total sample size was 28. The facility census was 101. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Standard and Transmission Based Precautions (TBP), undated, revealed the following: -TBP would be implemented for residents known or suspected to be infected with an infectious agent requiring additional control measures, -hand hygiene would be performed after contact with blood, body fluids, contaminated items, and immediately after removal 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 · D2023-07-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10 Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to administer insulin medication as ordered for 1 (Resident 21) of 39 sampled residents. The facility census was 101. Findings are: A. Review of Resident 21's undated care plan revealed the resident had a diagnosis of Diabetes and was at risk for abnormal blood sugar levels related to this. The care plan goal was to maintain blood sugars within normal range using the following interventions: 1) follow diet as ordered 2) discuss meal times, portion sizes, restrictions, snacks, and compliance with nutritional regimen as needed and 3) give medications as ordered. Review of Resident 21's Medication Administration Records dated April, May and June of 2023 revealed the following: -physician's order dated 11/29/2022 for Insulin (Novolog) injection solution, give 3 units subcutaneously (under the skin) two times a day for blood sugar levels over 200; -on 4/10/23 at 9:00 AM, blood sugar = 158 and resident was administered 3 units of Novolog insulin to the abdomen, left upper quadrant;…
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 before2023-07-25 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications related to long term use of antibiotic medications for 2 residents (Resident 79 and 96) that did not specify a duration and had no supporting documentation for clinical use based on laboratory results. The sample size was 2 and the facility census was 101. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Antimicrobial Stewardship Program with a revised date 4/2023 revealed the following: -The overall goal of the Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) is to prevent undesirable outcomes related to antibiotic misuse by optimizing the selection of drug, dose, route and duration of therapy. Antibiotic use protocols and systems to monitor antibiotic use will be implemented to achieve ASP goals. -The Antimicrobial Stewardship Committee has been established to provide support and oversee activities of the ASP. The committee and the ASP will be part 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 · Dcited before2023-07-25 · 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 12-006.17 Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control measures to prevent the potential spread of Covid-19 for 1 (Resident 62) of 6 sampled residents. The facility census was 101. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Covid-19 Guidelines dated 5/11/23 revealed the purpose of the policy was to provide clarification regarding Covid-19, to minimize exposure and promptly identify residents, team members and visitors with clinical features and risk for Covid-19. Transmission-Based Precautions should be implemented in the event of ongoing Covid-19 transmission within the facility that is not controlled with initial interventions. Residents that are identified at high risk are placed in a yellow zone related to transmission-based precautions and staff should wear an N95 mask and eye protection (face shield or goggles) when providing resident cares. B. An observation of 3 staff members entering room [ROOM NUMBER]…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to VETTER SENIOR LIVING — 22 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VETTER SENIOR LIVING | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 12/23/2016 |
| HIRSCHMAN, BRYON | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2017 |
| STUHR, BRIAN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/15/2017 |
| VANEKEREN, GLENN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/15/2017 |
| VETTER, ELDORA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/15/2017 |
| VETTER, JACK | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/15/2017 |
| ZAMORA, TRACY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2017 |
| VSL VETTER HEALTH SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $558K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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 285089. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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.