No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Good Samaritan Society - Millard

12856 Deauville Drive, Omaha, NE 68137 · Non profit - Corporation · 106 certified beds · (402) 895-2266 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (402) 895-2266 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 12 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
12811 Q St · (402) 230-5861 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
12767 Q St · (402) 895-7037 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
5222 S 136th St · (402) 218-9187 · Call to confirm hours
Park
13435 Birchwood Ave · (402) 444-5900 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 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 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased9.1%19.0%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.2%5.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder3.0%1.4%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.9%2.8%2.0%typical
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.1%4.3%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.3%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.7%4.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.7%18.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication10.0%19.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine86.2%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.9%4.0%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.9%25.9%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table12.2%20.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.0%2.0%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine29.3%75.9%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.7%20.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.0%11.4%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.901.811.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.141.921.80better

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.

41.1% 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 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

41.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
50.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.24U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.11hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.14hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 34 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 32% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF41.1%CMS range 26.9–55.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.9%CMS range 6.5–15.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge50.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge50.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge44.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified81.8%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 discharge68.2%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay2.3%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.4%CMS range 4.9–13.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.011.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.68
RN hours/ resident / day
0.73
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.68
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.10
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.51
RN hoursweekends
52.2%
Total nursing turnover
62.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 106 beds and averages 76.3 residents a day — about 72% occupied, or roughly 30 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.10 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.68 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.35 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-11-21)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2023-09-26)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 12-006.09(H)(iv)(5) and 12-006.09 Based on interview and record review the facility failed to monitor bowel movements and implement a bowel protocol for 1(Resident 2) of 1 resident sampled and failed to monitor blood glucose per physician's order for 1 (Resident 87) of 1 resident sampled. The facility census was 74. The findings are: A.Record review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 04-14-2025 revealed the facility staff assessed the following about the resident: -admitted to the facility on [DATE]. -Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) was scored as a 5. According to the MDS Manual, a score of 0 to 7 indicates severe cognitive impairment. -had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. -required limited assistance with hygiene, bed mobility and transfers -required extensive assistance with toileting, bathing and dressing. Record review of Resident 2's Bowel Movement (BM) log printed on 05-19-2026 revealed 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-05-26 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to implement interventions to promote pressure ulcer healing for 1 (Resident 26) of 4 sampled residents. The facility census was 74. Findings are:A.Record review of Resident 26's Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 04-28-2026 revealed the facility staff assessed the following about the resident:-admitted to the facility on [DATE].-had short-term and long-term memory problems.-required limited assistance with bed mobility and transfers.-required extensive assistance with toileting, bathing and upper body dressing-required total assistance with lower body dressing.-had a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and hemiplegia (a medical condition that causes severe or complete paralysis on one vertical half of the body).-had limited Range of Motion (ROM) on one side of the body. -was at risk of developing a pressure ulcer.-had a stage 3 pressure ulcer Record review of Resident 26's 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-02-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespread
    Ensure 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 12-006.12(D)(i) Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the treatment carts on the 200 and 500 halls were secure while left unattended. The facility census was 59. An observation on 02-20-2025 at 1:20 PM revealed an unlocked treatment cart on the 200 Hall. An interview on 02-20-2025 at 1:25 PM with Registered Nurse (RN) D revealed insulin (a medication used to treat Diabetes) was stored in the treatment cart and confirmed the treatment cart was unlocked and should have been when left unattended. An observation on 02-20-2025 at 1:34 PM revealed an unlocked treatment cart on the 500 Hall. An interview on 02-20-2025 at 1:40 PM with RN F revealed insulin was stored in the treatment cart and confirmed the treatment cart was unlocked and should have been when left unattended. Record review of the facility policy titled Medications: Acquisition Receiving Dispensing and Storage dated 03-29-2024 revealed under section 5 the following: Medications will be stored in a locked medication cart, drawer or cupboard. Only the person…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 12-006.09(H) Based on interview and record review the facility failed to perform neurological checks after a fall for 2 (Resident 1 and 3) of 4 residents sampled. The facility census was 59. The findings are: A. Record review of Resident 1's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed Resident 1 had an unwitnessed fall on 02-01-2025. Record review of Resident 1's Neuro Vital Sign Sheet Report (NVSSR) dated 02-01-2025 revealed at the top of the sheet instructions that after the completion of the initial neurological evaluation with vital signs, continue with evaluations every 30 minutes for 4 sets, then every 8 hours for the next 3 days. Furthermore, the NVSSR only had vital signs logged on the form. An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) H on 02-24-2025 at 7:50 AM revealed when performing neurological checks, the first check is completed when the fall occurred and then every 30 minutes for 4 sets, then every 8 hours for 3 days. Additionally, the vital signs are charted on the NVSSR and the remainder of the assessment is to be charted into the EHR.…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 12-006.09 (I)(i)(3). Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to implement fall interventions for 2 (Resident 3 and 4) of 4 residents sampled. The facility census was 59. The findings are: A. Record review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS; a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 12-18-2024 revealed the facility staff assessed the following about the resident: -Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS), a brief screen that aids in detecting cognitive impairment, was scored as a 4. According to the MDS Manual a score of 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impairment. -required moderate assistance with toileting, bathing and lower body dressing -required supervision assistance with transfers. Record review of Resident 3's care plan printed on 02-20-2025 revealed Resident 3 had a fall on 12-25-2024 and the intervention put into place to prevent further falls was to have the call light secured to the bed with Velcro. An observation on…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-11-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 1-009.04(i) Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility staff failed to maintain water temperatures in resident handwashing sinks to prevent the potential for hot water burns. This effected 6 of 62 residents (Resident 2, 13, 33, 36, 41 and 42). The facility identified a census of 62. Findings are: Observations on 11/18/2024 at 9:38 AM-10:30 AM revealed the following water temperature in residents hand washing sink: -Resident 36's water temperature was 128 degrees Fahrenheit. -Resident 41,42,13, and 33's water temperature was 122.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Observation with the Maintenance Director ( MD), Administrator, and Maintenance Technician Assistant (MTA)-C on 11/18/2024 between 12:52-1:26 PM revealed the following water temperatures in resident hand washing sinks: -Resident 36's water temperature was 130.1 degrees Fahrenheit. -Resident 41's water temperature was 130.0 degrees Fahrenheit. -Resident 13 and 33's water temperature was 129.0 degrees Fahrenheit. -Resident 2's water temperature was 130.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Interview…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-21 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(G)(ii) Based on record review and interview; the facility staff failed to provide a Transfer Discharge notification for 1 (Resident 18) of 1 resident. The facility had a census of 62. Findings are: A record review of Resident 18's progress notes revealed the resident had been sent to hospital on 7/5/2024 following a fall. Record review of Resident 18's medical record that included progress notes, faxes, demographic sheets and practitioner ordered revealed the was no evidence the facility staff had provided a Transfer Discharge notice to the resident or their responsible part. An interview on 11/20/2024 at 2:11 PM with the Facility Administrator confirmed a transfer discharge notification was not completed for Resident 18 Record review of the facility Discharge and Transfer Policy reviewed/revised 01/03/24 revealed the following information: -Policy -Before a location transfers or discharges a resident, the location must: 1. Notify the resident and the residents' representative of the transfer or discharge and the reason for the move in…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure 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 12-006.10 Based on record review and interview; facility staff failed to ensure 1 (Resident 18) of 5 residents was free of duplicate medication orders (orders for two or more identical medications or same therapeutic class). The facility had a census of 62. Findings are: A record review of Resident 18's Minimum Data Set (MDS -a federally mandated process for assessing the health needs and functional capabilities of residents in nursing homes) revealed Resident 18 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a mandatory tool used to identify the cognitive function of a resident in a nursing home) of 12, which indicated Resident 18 is moderately cognitively impaired. A record review of Resident 18's electronic health record (EHR) revealed the following diagnoses: Adult failure to thrive, Bipolar disorder, Anxiety disorder, History of falling, Chronic Kidney Disease, stage 3, legal blindness. A record review of Resident 18's EHR revealed the following medication orders: -Acetaminophen Extra Strength Tablet 500 MG. Give 500 milligrams (mg) by mouth…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-26 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10D Based on observations, interviews and record review; the facility failed to ensure that insulin was administered within recommended time frames for 1 of 1 residents (Resident 46). The facility census was 48. Findings are:A record review of Resident 46's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tools used for care planning) dated 6/30/2023 revealed Resident 46 had a score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS).This indicated Resident 46 had intact cognition. A record review of Resident 46's MDS revealed Resident 46 had a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus (a disease in which the body doesn't produce insulin to control the amount of glucose or sugar in the blood). An interview on 9/21/2023 at 7:41 AM was conducted with Resident 46. During the interview Resident 46 reported getting insulin (an animal derived or synthetic form of insulin used to treat diabetes) hours after eating. A record review of a physicians' order dated 7/4/2023 contained the following instructions: Insulin Aspart 100 unit/3 ml Pen 2-10 units SQ…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-08-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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 observation, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to maintain Oxygen tubing and a CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) a device used to deliver positive air pressure to a residents airway to prevent closure during sleep) mask to prevent cross contamination for 1 (Resident 42) of 1 sampled resident, failed to perform hand hygiene prior to medication administration for Resident 6, 30 and 31, failed to wear facial masks near Resident 9, 14, 1 and 6 and handle clean linen in a manner to prevent the potential for cross contamination. The facility staff identified a census of 48. The findings are: A. Observation on 08/10/22 at 03:30 PM of the oxygen tubing rolled up and on top of the concentrator without being covered. The CPAP mask was uncovered on top of overbed table. Observation on 08/11/22 at 07:30 AM of the oxygen tubing rolled up and on top of the concentrator without being covered. The CPAP mask was uncovered on top of overbed table. Review of the current physician orders revealed an order dated 08/11/22…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-08-16 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a written notice of the reason for transfer for 2 (Residents 38 and 24) of 2 residents reviewed. The facility census was 48. Findings are: A. Record review of Resident 38's Census Record revealed that Resident 38 had been sent to the hospital on 3/29/22, 6/13/22, 6/18/22 and 8/5/22. Record review of Resident 38's Electronic Medical Record revealed no written notice of the reason for the transfers had been provided to the patient or the representative at the time of those transfers. Interview on 08/16/22 at 10:52 AM with the facility Administrator confirmed that no written notice of the reason for the transfers had been provided to the resident or the representative at the time of those transfers. B. Review of Resident 24's medical record revealed Resident 24 was transferred to the hospital on 8/5/2022 for uncontrolled respiratory failure. Review of Resident 24's medical record revealed a bed hold signed for the hospitalization on 8/5/2022, however not letter was sent to Resident 24 or Resident 24's representative…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-08-16 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when 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 12-006.09D6 Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to have physician orders for Oxygen therapy and failed to maintain the CPAP (a device used to deliver positive air pressure to a residents airway to prevent closure during sleep) in a working manner for 1 (Resident 42) of 1 sampled resident. The facility staff identified a census of 48. The findings are: Interview conducted with Resident 42 on 08/10/22 at 11:04 AM revealed the CPAP leaks water all over and Resident 42 hasn't worn the CPAP for two or three weeks or more. Resident 42 stated that (gender) has been using the Oxygen concentrator and the nasal cannula at night since the CPAP leaks. Observation on 08/10/22 at 11:15 AM of ResMed air curve 10 CPAP machine on the night stand revealed the CPAP tubing and mask lying on top of table. Observation of Oxygen Concentrator with nasal cannula and tubing rolled up and laid on top of the Oxygen Concentrator. Review of Resident 42's medical record…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY — 92 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 91 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Edgebrook Care CenterEdgerton, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan - IndianolaIndianola, IA 1 of 5Good Samaritan - Red OakRed Oak, IA 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - AtkinsonAtkinson, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - BlackduckBlackduck, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Grand Island VillageGrand Island, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - LakotaLakota, ND 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane BrownLuverne, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St Luke's VillageKearney, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - WindomWindom, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society De SmetDe Smet, SD 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society MillerMiller, SD 1 of 5Salem Lutheran HomeElk Horn, IA 1 of 5Souris Valley Care CenterVelva, ND 1 of 5St Vincent's - A Prospera CommunityBismarck, ND 1 of 5Sunset Drive - a Prospera CommunityMandan, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan - AtwoodAtwood, KS 2 of 5Good Samaritan - Decatur CountyOberlin, KS 2 of 5Good Samaritan - EsthervilleEstherville, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - MansonManson, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - OttumwaOttumwa, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - WaukonWaukon, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - BottineauBottineau, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Hastings VillageHastings, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - OakesOakes, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Park RiverPark River, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Specialty Care CommunityRobbinsdale, MN 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St John'sKearney, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St Martin VillageRapid City, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - SuperiorSuperior, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Waconia And Westview AcreWaconia, MN 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society CantonCanton, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Luther ManorSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society New UnderwoodNew Underwood, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls CenterSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls VillageSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan-LiberalLiberal, KS 2 of 5The Good Samaritan Society-Kissimmee VillageKissimmee, FL 3 of 5Good Samaritan - AlgonaAlgona, IA 3 of 5Good Samaritan - DavenportDavenport, IA

Showing 40 of 91; lowest-rated first.

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
SANFORDOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 01/01/2021
THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETYOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 01/01/2019
BASHIR RAFIQ, NAUREENIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/01/2024
NORBY, NICKLOSIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 01/01/2018
CAIN, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
DYKHOUSE, DANAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
ENGBRECHT, WESLEYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
GASSEN, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 05/30/2024
GULSVIG, NEILIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
HERSETH SANDLIN, STEPHANIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
LUNDEEN, MARKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
MOLBERT, LAURISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
NORTH, ANDREWIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
SHULKIN, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
TEIKEN, BRENTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/30/2024
FLUIT, JOELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 10/01/2022
MIDDLETON, AIMEEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/27/2022
OLSON, NICHOLASIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/08/2024
ROGERS, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/13/2022
SCHEMA, NATHANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2022

CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 21 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.

$6.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-2.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.1M
Related-party expense18% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 47%Medicare 7%Other / private 46%

This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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

$358per resident / day
operating cost
$10,890per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$349per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). 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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Nebraska
$8,377/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,216/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,350/mo
Assisted living

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 285098. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-21, 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.

What to do next