Newport House
6798 N 67th Plaza, Omaha, NE 68152 · Non profit - Corporation · 96 certified beds · (402) 572-2595 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 23.7% | 19.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 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 | 4.0% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.6% | 18.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.8% | 19.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.8% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.6% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.7% | 20.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 48.7% | 75.9% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.3% | 20.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.6% | 11.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.94 | 1.81 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.19 | 1.92 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
60.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 237 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.7% 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 133 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 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 75% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 60.6%CMS range 54.9–66.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.6%CMS range 8.4–14.6 | 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 | 64.7% | 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 | 69.2% | 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 | 59.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 93.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.7% | 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 | 7.6%CMS range 4.9–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 96 beds and averages 90.9 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.07 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.51 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.01 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.31 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.62 to 1.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-01-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11(E)Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure food stored in the kitchen's refrigerators and freezers were labeled, dated and/or sealed. The facility census was 92.Findings are:A record review of the facility's Food Storage General Guidelines policy with a revision date of 3/8/2024 revealed the following:1) All foods are labeled and dated.9) Food is stored in clean, approved containers that are covered, labeled and dated. This includes foods stored in refrigerators, freezers, and pantries. A record review of the FDA Food Code 2022, revealed that food packages shall be in good condition and protect the integrity of the contents so that food is not exposed to adulteration or potential contaminants. An observation of the large reach-in freezer on 1/26/2026 at 7:15 AM revealed the following: 1 clear bag of small round brown substance was not labeled and sealed. 1 clear bag of large, flat, tan/brown substance was not labeled and sealed. 2 brown bags of yellow, elongated substance was not sealed. 1 brown bag…
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 · E2026-01-29 · 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 Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.18(B)Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.18(D)Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.19(A)(i)Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.18(C)(i) Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Hoyer lifts (mechanical full body lifts) were sanitized before or after each use, gowns were worn during high contact cares on Resident 14, Resident 7's nebulizer (neb)(a machine used to deliver aerosolized medications to the lungs) administration kit was cleaned after each use, handle linens used for perineal (peri)(area between the genitals and rectum) care in a manner to prevent the potential for cross contamination for Resident 84, failed to perform hand hygiene with glove changes during perineal care for Resident 84, store oxygen tubing and a Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure Device (BiPAP)(a machine used to treat apnea or high carbon dioxide levels) mask in a manner to prevent the potential for cross contamination, and failed to ensure…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-29 · tag 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 12-006.04(F)(i)(5)Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the medical practitioner of 10 consecutive days of refusal of scheduled bowel medications for 1 (Resident 4) of 1 sampled residents. The facility staff identified a census of 92.Findings are:Record review of a facility policy entitled Notification to Physician/ Family of Change in Resident Health Status dated reviewed 08/27/2018 revealed the following: - Policy Statement: The Care Communities will notify the resident's physician or designee the resident's legal representative when there is: - A need to alter treatment significantly (i.e., a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences or ineffectiveness and/or need to implement a new form of treatment). - Definitions: - C. A need to alter treatment significantly such as a need to stop a form of treatment because of adverse consequences (e.g., an adverse drug reaction), or need to initiate a new form of treatment to deal with a problem (e.g., the use of any medical procedure or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-29 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(G) Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a rational (based on clear thought and reason) was provided to continue as needed (PRN) Lorazepam (a medication used to treat anxiety) greater than 14 days. This affected 1 (Resident 7) of 5 sampled residents. The facility census was 92. Findings are:A record review of Resident 7's Clinical Census dated 01/27/2026 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and elected to receive hospice services on 10/03/2025. A record review of Resident 7's Medical Diagnosis dated 01/27/2026 revealed the resident had diagnoses of Chronic Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure (CHF), Delirium Due To Known Physiological Condition (fluctuating disturbance in attention, awareness, and cognition), Depression, and Anxiety. A record review of Resident 7's Minimum Data Set (MDS)(a comprehensive assessment used to develop a resident's care plan) dated 01/06/2026 revealed the resident had a Brief 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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(E)(i). Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan to prevent the potential for altered nutrition for 1 (Resident 3) of 2 residents sampled. The facility census was 92. Findings are:Record review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 01-04-2026 revealed the facility staff assessed the following about the resident:-admitted to the facility on [DATE].-weight on admission was 173 pounds (lbs).-Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) was scored as 0. According to the MDS Manual a score of 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impairment.-required extensive assistance with eating.-required total assistance with hygiene, dressing, bed mobility, transfers, toileting and bathing. Record review of Resident 3's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed a baseline care plan dated 12-31-2025 indicating Resident 3 was on a regular mechanical soft diet and required assistance…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-29 · tag 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 12-006.09(J)(i)(1). Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to evaluate, monitor and implement interventions for a significant weight loss for 1(Resident 3) of 2 residents sampled. The facility census was 92. Findings are:Record review of the facility policy titled Weight Management dated 10-10-2023 revealed it is the policy of the facility to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status by recognizing, evaluating, and addressing the needs of the residents at risk or experiencing impaired nutrition and hydration, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or residents' preference indicates otherwise. Record review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 01-04-2026 revealed the facility staff assessed the following about the resident:-admitted to the facility on [DATE].-weight on admission was 173 pounds (lbs).-Brief Interview of Mental…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-29 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(D). Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% as evidenced by 2 medication errors out of 25 opportunities for error. The facility medication error rate was 8 %. The facility census was 92. Findings are:Record review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration dated 03-08-2022 revealed it was the facility policy to store and administer medications and treatments in a safe and effective manner. Professional standards of medication administration are followed including the 6 rights of medication administration:-right resident-right drug-right dose-right time-right route-right documentation. An observation conducted on 01-28-2026 at 9:00 AM of Registered Nurse (RN) E administering medications to Resident 84 revealed Resident 84 was given the following medications while eating breakfast:Riluzole 50 milligram (mg) 1 tabletTylenol 500 mg 2 tabletsAspirin 81 mg tabletCyclobenzaprine hydrochloride 10 mg tabletFamotidine 20 mg tabletMultivitamin 1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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
License Reference Number NAC 12-006.12(D)(i) Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dispose of medications in accordance with standard of practice. The facility identified a census of 94. Findings are: Observation on 8/29/24 at 7:00 AM of medication administration by Registered Nurse (RN) B, revealed RN B dropped a Tylenol 500 mg on the floor. After dropping the Tylenol 500 mg on the floor, RN B picked up the Tylenol tab and threw it away in the trash can attached to the medication cart. Interview on 8/29/24 at 7:30 AM of RN B confirmed RN B did not know how to dispose of medications. Observation on 8/29/24 at 8:21 AM of medication administration by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C, revealed LPN C had placed the following medications in the medication cup: Atorvastatin (used for treatment of high cholesterol) 40 mg, Sertraline (antidepressant) 25 mg, Amlodipine (antihypertensive) 2.5 mg, memantine (used for treatment of dementia) 10 mg, Aspirin 81 mg, Carvedilol (antihypertensive) 6.25 mg, Donepezil (used for treatment of dementia) 10 mg, however,…
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 before2023-07-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.17D Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11E Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene between Residents 34, 20, 33, 75, 65, 13, 17, 26, 14, 11 and 57 during meal service in the dining room, failed to ensure staff changed gloves and performed hand hygiene (cleaned) after surgical mask and cell phone were touched during meal service for Resident 6 to prevent cross-contamination (transfer of bacteria from one surface to another), and failed to ensure the vent in front of the kitchen hood was clean to prevent the potential for foodborne illness (illness caused by food contamination). This had the potential to affect 90 resident who consumed (ate) food prepared in the facility kitchen. The total facility census was 91. Findings are: A. A record review of the facility's undated What's Expected of Me Quick Sheet, The Role and Responsibility of All Staff Related to Dining Service revealed that when 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.
“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 IMMANUEL — 3 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 2 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.7★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BEAR, SCOTT | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/13/2017 |
| GURLEY, ERIC | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/05/2013 |
| LEO GOFTA, CYNTHIA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/15/2013 |
| PALADINO-KAMINSKI, JULIE | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2017 |
| SCHOLER, SUSAN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 07/01/2014 |
| SEALER, TAMARA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2014 |
| TURNER, JOHN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2021 |
| ALLOWAY, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2018 |
| BALLUFF, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| BENSON, ELLSWORTH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/14/2020 |
| BERGMAN-EVANS, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2022 |
| BOTHOF, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2023 |
| BULLOCK, STEVE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2019 |
| BURNS, RANDAL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/14/2020 |
| FRIEDLUND, DANNY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2021 |
| HAWLIK, TERESA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| HOWERTER, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/14/2020 |
| JOHNSON, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2022 |
| NICHOLS, CLARENCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2018 |
| PARKER, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| POWERS, JILL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2018 |
| SCANLAN, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2022 |
| SKOLKIN, ANDREA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2019 |
| THOMPSON, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 37 rows in the source record cover these 24 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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $836K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 285085. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-29, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.