Accura Healthcare of O'Neill
1102 North Harrison Street, O' Neill, NE 68763 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 84 certified beds · (402) 336-2384 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2023
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (29) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.5% | 19.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.5% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 2.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.4% | 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 | 5.7% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.2% | 18.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 43.9% | 19.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 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 | 29.9% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.8% | 20.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 6.9% | 75.9% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.4% | 20.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.5% | 11.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.88 | 1.81 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.85 | 1.92 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
38.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 42 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 34.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 23 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 11% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 38.0%CMS range 27.9–53.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 7.7–16.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 34.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 26.1% | 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 | 8.7% | 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 | 93.9% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 6.1%CMS range 3.0–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.54 | 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 84 beds and averages 43.4 residents a day — about 52% occupied, or roughly 41 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.77 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.86 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.55 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 3.37 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.93 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.57 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 64% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
29 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 18 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Hcited before2026-06-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to implement physicians' orders for Residents 3, 4,12, and 50. The sample size was 12 and the facility census was 45. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Provision of Quality Care dated 12/3/25 revealed the facility ensured resident's received treatment and care by qualified persons in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plans and the resident's choices. Qualified persons provided care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice, the residents' care plan, and the residents' choice. B. Review of Resident 12's History and Physical dated 12/12/25 revealed the resident's condition had worsened over the past 4-5 days. The resident presented to the provider with fever, chills, sore throat, cough, and a weight change. The resident was subsequently admitted to the hospital. Review of Resident 12's Hospital Discharge Information…
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 before2026-06-08 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(H)Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to report the potential neglect of Resident 12 (not receiving laboratory work as ordered and IV (Intravenous-administered through an intravenous (placed in a vein) catheter (fluids or medications)) to the State Agency as required. The sample size was 12 and the facility census was 45. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Vulnerable Adult dated 10/19/22 revealed the facility supported zero tolerance for resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and/or misappropriation of resident property. The facility reported maltreatment of vulnerable adults in compliance of requirements included suspected abuse. The process included identification, recognition, and reporting. The facility description of neglect was the facility failure to provide goods and services to a resident that were necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Reports were made to Department of Health and Human…
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 · D2026-06-08 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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(H)(iv)(1)Based on observations, record review, and interview; the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services for the management of Resident 4's indwelling urinary catheter (a flexible plastic tube inserted into the bladder that remains there to provide continuous urinary drainage) to prevent the potential for infections. The sample size was 3 and the facility census was 45.Findings are:A. Review of the facility policy titled Catheter Care with a revision date of 11/13/24 indicated a goal to prevent urinary tract infections and to maintain proper functioning of the urinary drainage system. B. Review of Resident 4's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 3/13/26 revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure, Multi-Drug Resistant Organism (MDRO-microorganism which is resistant to multiple antibiotics), anxiety, heart failure, high blood pressure, 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 · Dcited before2026-02-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(H). Based on observation, interview and record review the facility staff failed to report an elopement to the State Agency within the required timeframes for 1(Resident 1) of 3 residents sampled. The facility census was 46. The findings are:The findings are:Record review of the facility's undated policy titled Reporting requirements revealed whomever identifies or is notified first at the community that there is a potential self-report of any type should notify the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator immediately after ensuring safety of residents and staff. The administrator and/or DON will notify police for any physical or potential physical abuse. The Administrator or DON will notify the Clinical Specialist who will communicate the decision to report or not report. The Administrator/DON will work with the Clinical Nurse Specialist on the initial and 5-day investigation. Record review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) revealed the facility staff had assessed 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 · F2025-05-06 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18 Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship (coordinated plan aimed at optimizing antibiotic use to prevent resistance, unnecessary exposure, and adverse outcomes) Plan to identify if the facility use of antibiotic was within the criteria defined to prevent the overuse or unnecessary use, of antibiotics and/or to prevent potential adverse outcomes. This had the potential to affect all residents residing within the facility. The facility census was 45. Findings are: A record review of the facility Antibiotic Prescribing Practices dated 10/2019 revealed that antibiotic use protocols, including prescribing practices, were implemented as part of the facilities Antibiotic Stewardship Program for the purpose of optimizing treatment of infections and reducing adverse effects associated with antibiotic use. A record review of the facility Antibiotic Stewardship Policy dated 3/2023 revealed the facility implemented an Antibiotic Stewardship Program as part of the facility's overall infection…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-06 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY B. A record review of the Unavailable Medications Policy dated September 2024 revealed the facility was to utilize uniform guidelines for unavailable medications. The following guidelines were identified; -the facility was to maintain a contract with a pharmacy provider to supply the facility with routine, as needed and emergency medications. -a supply of commonly used medications was to be maintained in-house for the timely initiation of medications. -staff were to take immediate action when it was known a medication was not available: 1) determine the reason for unavailability, length of time the medication was unavailable and what efforts had been attempted by the facility or the pharmacy provider to obtain the medication; 2) notify the physician of inability to obtain medication upon notification or awareness that medications were not available. Obtain alternate treatment order and/or specific orders for monitoring the resident while medication was on hold; and 3) if the facility allows, determine if the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 observations, record review and interviews; the facility failed to assure a safe environment as the staff failed to 1) utilize safe transfer techniques with use of the mechanical lift to prevent potential accidents for Resident 31; 2) revise current interventions or develop new interventions to prevent ongoing falls for Resident 5; and 3) implement assessed fall interventions for Residents 29, 34 and 40. The sample size was 8 and the facility census was 45. Findings are: A record review of the facility policy Safe Resident Handling/Transfers dated 7/24/23 revealed it was the policy of this facility to ensure the residents were handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risks of injury and provide and promote a safe, secure and comfortable experience for the residents while keeping the employee safe in accordance with current standards and guidelines. All residents required safe handling when transferred to prevent or minimize the risk of injury…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-06 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12(A) Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to address gradual dose reductions (GDR, stepwise tapering of a dose to determine whether or not symptoms, conditions, or risks can be managed by a lower dose or whether or not the dose or medication can be discontinued) in a timely manner for Residents 31 and 14; and to document a clinical rationale as to why GDRs were not attempted for Residents 5, 14, and 31. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 45. Findings are: A. A record review of Resident 5's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool used in Care Planning) dated 4/3/25 revealed the resident had a serious mental illness; was cognitively intact; had diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia; and received routine anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and anti-depressant medications. A record review of Resident 5's Care Plan last revised 4/29/25 revealed the resident received anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, 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 · E2025-05-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12(D)(vi) Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure insulin pens for 4 (Residents 5, 8, 10, and 14) of 6 sampled residents were dated when opened to ensure the insulin was not given beyond the recommended effective date. The facility census was 45. Findings are: A record review of the facility's undated Medication Storage policy revealed the facility policy ensured all medications housed on the premises were stored in the pharmacy and/or the medication rooms according to the manufactures recommendations, and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security. A record review of the facility policy Storage of Medications Requiring Refrigeration Policy dated April 2025 revealed the following: -The facility assured proper and safe storage of medications to prevent potential alteration or medication by exposure to improper temperatures. -The facility provided safe and effective storage of all drugs consistent with state and federal…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY E. A record review of the facility policy Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) dated September 2024 revealed the following: -an order would be obtained for enhanced barrier precautions wound be obtained for residents with wounds or an indwelling medical device (urinary catheters/feeding tubes) or if they had an infection or colonization with a Center's for Disease Control (CDC) targeted Multi-Drug-Resistant Organism (MDRO) when contact precautions did not otherwise apply, -gloves and gowns would be available near or outside the resident room, -Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for EBP was only necessary when performing high-contact care activities, -PPE would be discarded prior to exit of the room, -high-contact resident care activities included: dressing, bathing, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs, or assisting with toileting, device care or use, and wound care, -MDRO's targeted by the CDC included Methicillin-Resistant-Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), and -EBP wound be used for 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 · D2025-05-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(S) Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure a privacy bag was utilized for a catheter bag to promote dignity for Resident 5. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 45. Findings are: A record review of the facility policy Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity dated September 2024 revealed all staff members were involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect resident rights, the resident's lifestyle and personal choices would be considered when providing care and services, and staff would maintain resident privacy. A record review of the facility policy Catheter Care dated September 2024 revealed privacy bags would be available, catheter drainage bags would be covered at all times while in use, and privacy bags would be changed out when soiled, with a catheter change, or as needed. A record review of Resident 5's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool used in Care Planning) dated 4/3/25 revealed the resident had serious…
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.
Show the remaining 18 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-06 · 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 175 NAC 12-006.04(F)(i)(5) Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to; notify Resident 23's practitioner of the unavailability of an anticoagulant medication and to notify Resident 33's practitioner of the resident's non-compliance with fluid restriction and edema wear and failure to administer the resident's steroid eye drops after a surgical procedure. The sample size was 2 and the facility census was 45. Findings are: A record review of the Unavailable Medications Policy dated September 2024 revealed the facility was to notify the physician of the inability to obtain medications when the facility was made aware the medications were not available. If a resident missed a scheduled dose of the medication, the staff were to follow the procedures for a medication error, including notifying the physician. A. A record review of Resident 23's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used to determine a resident's functional capabilities…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-06 · 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 ensure Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR, stepwise tapering of a dose to determine whether or not symptoms, conditions, or risks can be managed by a lower dose or whether or not the dose or medication can be discontinued) had a documented clinical rationale as to why they were not attempted for Resident 5; and failed to ensure as needed antipsychotic medications (a type of psychoactive medication which alters chemicals in the bran to effect changes in behavior, mood, and emotion) were limited to 14 days for Resident 34. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 45. Findings are: A record review of the facility policy Use of Psychotropic Drugs, last reviewed February 2020 revealed the following: -residents were not given psychotropic drugs unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition, as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record, and the medication was beneficial to 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 · D2025-05-06 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H)(iii)(2) Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility staff failed to obtain pressure ulcer treatment for 1 (Resident 196) of 1 sampled resident. The facility staff identified a census of 45. Findings are: A record review of the hospital Discharge Summary dated 3/20/25 revealed Resident 196 had been admitted to the hospital after being found in poor condition in the resident's home. The resident had not been eating, only primarily drinking. The resident had a large sacral pressure ulcer. The resident wanted to return home, but the resident realized the sore to the resident's sacrum was serious and could lead to long term problems. Required dressing change 1-2 times a day. A record review of a Nursing Progress Note for Resident 196 dated 3/20/25 at 1:19 PM revealed the resident was admitted from the hospital with diagnoses of chronic pain, adult failure to thrive, pressure ulcer to the sacral region, malnutrition, and alcohol use. A record review of an admission Skin Assessment for Resident 196 dated 3/20/25 at 1:12 PM revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.17 Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to develop/implement a water management program which identified a risk assessment and control measures/testing protocols to address potential hazards. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. The facility census was 34. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Water Management Program dated 9/2022 revealed the Water Management Plan referred to the documents that contained all the information pertaining to the development and implementation of the facility's water management activities for reducing the risk of Legionella (bacterium which causes Legionnaires disease, a serious type of pneumonia. The bacteria can be found in human-made building water systems such as sink, shower heads, decorative fountains, hot tubs, or large complex plumbing systems). The policy indicated the facility was to develop a risk assessment to identify where Legionella and/or other opportunistic pathogens could grow and spread in the facility's water system. In addition, the facility was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-18 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
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 12-006.06B Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to maintain a system to identify repeat resident grievances, and to ensure sustainable resolutions of resident concerns. The sample size was 7 and the facility census was 34. Findings are: Review of the facility's undated Grievance Policy revealed the following: -It was the facilities policy that each resident had the right to voice grievances without discrimination or fear of reprisal. -The facility ensured prompt resolution to all grievances and kept the resident and/or resident representatives informed throughout the investigation and resolution process. -The facility grievance process included a designated person to receive and track grievances through their conclusion, lead necessary investigations, maintain confidentiality, communicate with residents throughout the process, and coordinate with other State and Federal Agencies as required. -The objective of the grievance policy was to ensure the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-18 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 12-006.12B2 Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 8 residents (Residents 12, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 and 144) medications had a record of accounting to prevent loss or theft of medications while awaiting disposition. The sample size was 8 and the facility census was 34. Findings are: Review of the undated facility policy Destruction of unused medications revealed the following: -All unused, contaminated, or expired prescription drugs shall be disposed of in accordance with state laws and regulations. -A Non-Controlled Medication Destruction Record must be maintained for all non-controlled drugs destroyed and such record must be verified by the consultant pharmacist. -Information included on the record consisted of; name and address of facility, date medication destroyed, prescription number, name, strength and quantity of the medication being destroyed, and signature of persons witnessing the destruction. An observation 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 · E2024-04-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11E Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure food service equipment was cleaned and maintained, outdated food was not available for consumption, and staff safe handling of ready to eat food was in place to prevent the potential spread of food borne illness. The sample size was 28 and the facility census was 34. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Dietary Employee Personal Hygiene dated 2019 revealed the following: -the facility utilized guidelines for employees to prevent contamination of food by employees, including monitoring of employee health for communicable diseases, ensuring clean clothing, and ensuring hand/fingernails hygiene. -hand hygiene included handwashing prior to work, always after using the restroom, eating, drinking, or smoking, after sneezing/coughing, and before putting on and after removing gloves, and -employees were never to use bare hand contact with any foods, ready to eat or otherwise. 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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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(1) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident 35 or the resident's representative the required bed hold notification when the resident was transferred to the hospital. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 34. Findings are: Review of the undated facility policy Bed Hold Notice Upon Transfer revealed the facility would provide the resident and/or resident representative written notice at the time of transfer for hospitalization or therapeutic leave, which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy and addresses information explaining the return of the resident to the next available bed. In the event of an emergency transfer, written notice will be provided within 24 hours. Review of Resident 35's Hospital Transfer Form revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on 1/29/24 at 4:00 PM after the resident had a fall. Further review revealed no documented evidence the resident or the resident's representative had…
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 · D2024-04-18 · 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 Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09B Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a PASARR [Preadmission Screening and Resident Review - used to determine individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receives care and services in a setting appropriate to their needs] had been completed after 2 residents (Residents 22 and 24) were diagnosed with a serious mental disorder and received antipsychotic medications (used to treat psychiatric conditions) while residing in the facility. The sample size was 2 and the facility census was 34. Findings are: A. Review of the undated facility policy Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR Program revealed the following: -The facility coordinated assessments with the PASARR program to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition received care and services in a setting appropriate for their needs. -The Social Services Director (SSD) would be responsible…
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 before2024-02-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(8) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report a fall with injury as a potential allegation of abuse/neglect to the State Agency for 1 (Resident 1) of 6 sampled residents. The facility census was 42. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation dated 9/2022 revealed the following related to reporting/responding to abuse: -report all alleged allegations of abuse to the Administrator, the State Agency, Adult Protective Services (APS) and to all other required agencies within the specified timeframe's (immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made if serious bodily injury occurs and not later than 24 hours if the cause of the allegation does not result in bodily injury). -the Administrator will follow up with government agencies during business hours to confirm the initial report was received and to report the results of the investigation when final within 5 working days of the incident. B. Review of an Incident Report dated 1/29/24 at 12:39 PM revealed…
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 before2024-01-24 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04C3a(6) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify resident's responsible parties about falls for 2 (Resident's 1 and 3) of 3 sampled residents. The facility census was 48. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Change in Condition Notification with a revised date of 12/31/23 revealed the purpose of the policy was to monitor residents for changes in their condition, respond appropriately to those changes and to notify the physician and responsible party/family member of changes. B. Review of Resident 1's undated care plan revealed the following: -the resident was at risk for falls related to poor balance, required a wheelchair for ambulation, and had a history of falls prior to admission; -severe cognitive impairment; and -required extensive assistance with transfers, toileting, personal hygiene and mobility. Review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Note dated 11/29/23 at 09:09 AM revealed the resident had a fall and was found on the floor on hands and knees. The resident was unable to state what occurred 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 · E2023-03-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.05(9) Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to protect the residents from potential abuse as the facility failed to assure abuse training was completed for 3 out of 5 newly hired employees. The total sample size was 24 and the facility census was 40. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation dated 9/2022 revealed it was the policy of the facility to protect the health, welfare and rights of each resident. The policy further indicated all new employees were to be educated on abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property during their initial orientation. Training topics were to include: -prohibiting and preventing all forms of abuse; -identifying what constitutes abuse; -recognizing signs of abuse, including injuries of unknown origin; -the reporting process for abuse; and -understanding behavioral symptoms of residents that may increase the risk of abuse and neglect. B. Review of Dietary Aide (DA)-C's employee file revealed the staff was hired on 2/27/23.…
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 · D2023-03-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D1c Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to provide assistance related to toileting care for Resident 3 and dining assistance to prevent weight loss for Resident 15. The sample size was 24 and the facility census was 40. Findings are: A. Review of Resident 3's Care Plan with a revision date of 10/26/22 revealed the resident required extensive assistance for mobility, hygiene, bathing, and toileting. Review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS- federally required comprehensive assessment used to develop the resident care plan) dated 12/29/22 revealed the following; -the resident received extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, bathing, and toileting, -was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, and -had severe cognitive impairment. Observations of Resident 3 on 3/7/23 revealed the following; -at 8:08 AM the resident was in the facility hallway, the resident was self-mobile in a wheelchair out to the dining…
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 before2023-03-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to ensure assessments and ongoing monitoring were completed for Resident 21 related to dialysis (a method used to treat kidney disease by clearing metabolic waste products, toxins, and excess fluid from the blood) and to complete neurological assessments (assessment of motor and sensory skills, hearing, speech, vision, coordination and balance to determine a potential injury or change in status) after Resident 21 had a fall with head injury. The sample size was 4 and the facility census was 40. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Care of the Resident Receiving Dialysis Treatments with a reviewed dated of 11/21 revealed the purpose of the policy was to prevent complications such as fluid overload, infection or clotting of the access area or hemorrhage in the dialysis resident. The following procedures were identified regarding monitoring of the dialysis resident: -monitor feet and hands for edema;…
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 before2023-03-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D7b Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to develop fall interventions based on causal factors related to falls for Resident 20. The sample size was 4 and the facility census was 40. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Fall Prevention and Fall Leaf Program last revised 2/23 revealed the purpose of the program was to identify fall risks and implement interventions to prevent falls. For falls, a post fall evaluation would be reviewed at the next department clinical meeting for interdisciplinary review of the fall, interventions and determination of need for additional intervention(s) and/or revision of current intervention(s). B. Review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 2/23/23 revealed diagnoses of high blood pressure, diabetes, cerebral vascular accident, dementia, and major depressive disorder. The MDS identified the following: -moderate cognitive impairment, -required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers,…
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 · D2023-03-09 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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.D8b Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to implement measures to prevent ongoing weight loss for Residents 15 and 32. The sample size was 2 and the facility census was 40. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Weight Monitoring dated 2/2023 revealed the following; -the facility would ensure that all resident's maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that this was not possible. -weights would be followed by the interdisciplinary team members, -the Registered Dietitian (RD) would be consulted to assist with interventions, the physician would be consulted to assist with interventions, and the -the interdisciplinary team would communicate care instructions to the staff, follow up with weight loss, and track until stable. B. Review of Resident 32's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandate comprehensive…
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 · D2023-03-09 · 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 LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to follow up on the Consultant Pharmacist's recommendations related to gradual dose reductions (GDR) of Resident 10's psychotropic (any drug capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior) medications and to ensure that PRN (as needed) orders for a psychotropic drug was limited to 14 days or have a duration documented by the physician for Resident 35. The facility census was 40 and the sample size was 6. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Use of Psychotropic Drugs dated 2/2020 revealed residents were not to be given psychotropic drugs unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition/diagnosis and was beneficial to the resident as demonstrated by monitoring and response to the medication. The policy revealed the following: -residents who use psychotropic medications shall receive GDR's, unless clinically contraindicated, to discontinue the drugs; -PRN orders for psychotropic…
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 · D2023-03-09 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure 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
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 174 NAC 12-006.11D Based on observation and interview: the facility failed to ensure food temperatures were maintained to prevent the potential for food borne illness and ensure the palatability of the food for Resident 21. The total sample size was 24 and the census was 40. Observations on 3/6/23 of room tray distribution for Resident 21's noon meal revealed the following: -the resident's noon meal was delivered to the resident's room at 12:12 PM, Resident 21 remained outside of the facility at dialysis; -12:30 PM (18 minutes after the resident's meal had been delivered to the resident's room) the resident returned from dialysis; -12:33 PM the resident removed the thermal cover from the meal tray and tasted the food. The resident indicated the food was warm but was not hot. Resident 21 reported staff frequently delivered the noon meal to the resident's room when the resident was still at dialysis. Observations on 3/8/23 revealed the following: -8:34 AM the resident left the facility to receive dialysis treatment; -12:13 PM the resident remained at…
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 ACCURA HEALTHCARE — 41 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 40 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACCURA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| ALLEN, BRADY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| BOETTCHER, TAMMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| GLASER, KRISTOPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| KLEINSASSER, MEGAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| KOHL, SEAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| LENEAVE, TED | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| TAYLOR, PAMELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| TOTI, LISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| AVIV FINANCING II LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/10/2025 |
| AVIV HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES OPERATING PARTNERSHIP I LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| NEBRASKA SNF FACILITIES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| OHI HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
| OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.
6 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 285108. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-06, 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.