The Lighthouse at Lakeside Village
17600 Arbor Street, Omaha, NE 68130 · Non profit - Corporation · 54 certified beds · (402) 717-0200 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)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 23.3% | 19.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.7% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.3% | 18.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.8% | 19.3% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.5% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 42.2% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.7% | 20.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.8% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.0% | 75.9% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.1% | 20.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.1% | 11.4% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.57 | 1.81 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.21 | 1.92 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
42.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 141 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.9% 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 73 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 0.54 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 42.2%CMS range 36.4–49.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.2%CMS range 6.2–13.2 | 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 | 58.9% | 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 | 60.3% | 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 | 52.0% | 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 | 94.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.6%CMS range 3.6–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 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 54 beds and averages 47.2 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.31 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.42 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.00 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 4.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.58 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.56 to 1.08 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% 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
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-27 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure reference: 175 NAC 006.04(A)(iii) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure criminal background checks were completed on 1 [Nurse Aide A] of 5 sampled staff members. The facility had a total census of 51 residents. Findings are: A review of background screening checks completed on 3/19/24 for Nurse Aide A did not reveal a completed criminal background check. A review of employee report dated 5/27/26 revealed Nurse Aide A had a hire date of 3/18/24. In interviews on 5/27/26 at 12:37 PM and 4:05 PM, Human Resource Business Partner confirmed a criminal background check had not been completed on Nurse Aide A due to Nurse Aide A being a minor. Human Resource Business Partner reported that an additional request would need to be made to the vendor in order to have a criminal background check completed on an employee who is a minor. A review of facility policy titled Abuse-Prevention and Reporting dated 4/7/26 revealed the following under the Pre-hire Screening section:- All applicants for employment in the facility shall, at a minimum, have the following…
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 · D2026-05-27 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse and significant injury were reported to Adult Protective Services within 2 hours for 2 [Residents 1 and 2] of 3 sampled resident and failed to ensure an investigation report was submitted to the state agency within 5 working days for 3 [Residents 1, 2, and 3] of 3 sampled residents. The facility had a total census of 51 residents. Findings are:A.A review of facility Abuse/Neglect Report dated 5/7/26 revealed an incident of potential abuse involving Resident 2 occurred on 5/3/26 before dinner. The description of the incident in the report revealed that Nurse Aide A had observed Nurse Aide B was being rough with Resident 2 by grabbing Resident 2's wrists and pulling on them. Nurse Aide A reported the occurrence to Licensed Practical Nurse D who did an assessment of Resident 2. Nurse Aide B was sent home. According to the Abuse/Neglect report, the facility completed an investigation that included interviews with 2 other staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-12 · 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 175NAC 12-006.11(E) Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure expired food was discarded on or before the expiration date and failed to ensure opened food items were sealed and dated. The facility also failed to perform hand hygiene prior to and after touching soiled items while preparing food which had the potential for food borne illness. The facility also failed to measure items according to the recipe while preparing food. This had the potential to affect 30 out of 31 residents who consumed from the main kitchen in the facility. The facility census was 31. Findings are: A. An observation during the initial kitchen tour of the main kitchen on 3/6/25 at 12:22 PM revealed the dry storage area had two bags of corn flakes opened with no date, and a third bag opened with a date of 12/23. One bag of premier white chips opened with no date, one small bin of white chips with no lid, one can of coconut pecan frosting with expiration date of March 21, 2023. One 25 pound bag of lentil beans opened with a date of 9/18/24 in a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to transmit a Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) record to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the prescribed time frames for 1 (Resident 6) of 1 sampled resident. The facility census was 31. Findings are: Record review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual revealed the facility is required to transmit the MDS within 14 days of completion. Record review of Resident 6's death tracking record with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/19/24, revealed the assessment was completed on 12/2/2024 but was not transmitted to CMS. An interview with the MDS Specialist (MDSS) on 03/10/2025 at 12:01 PM revealed that the MDS was marked as not to be transmitted to CMS. The MDSS confirmed the record should have been submitted to CMS. An interview with the Corporate Nurse Specialist (CNS) on 03/10/2025 at 3:46 PM confirmed the facility follows guidelines in the RAI manual for MDS transmission.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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(F)(iii) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to update the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP, a written interdisciplinary plan detailing how to provide quality care for a resident) to accurately reflect code status for 2 (Residents 5 and 12) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 31. Findings are: Record review of a facility policy entitled Care Plans-Comprehensive dated [DATE] revealed that the facility develops a comprehensive care plan for each resident which would include measurable objectives and timetables designed to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs through compassionate, trauma informed care, as identified in the comprehensive assessment. The policy identified that the care plan is periodically reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after assessment. A. Record review of Resident 5's Census List dated [DATE] revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE]. Record review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(I) Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent the potential for hot liquid burns for 1 (Resident 5) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 31. Findings are: A record review of the facility's policy entitled Hot Liquids Safety dated 2/16/22 revealed that the facility would have a process in place to assess risk of injury from hot liquids so appropriate interventions could be implemented to reduce the risk of burns. A record review of Resident 5's Census List dated 03/11/2025 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 5's Diagnosis List dated 03/10/2025 revealed the resident had diagnoses of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (heart attack), metabolic encephalopathy (a brain dysfunction caused by a problem with the body's chemical processes), need for assistance with personal care, visual hallucinations, psychotic disorder with delusions,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-12 · 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 12-006.10(D) Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of 5% or less as evidenced by three errors out of 25 opportunities and resulted in a medication error rate of 12%. This affected two (Resident 1 and Resident 36) out of three residents sampled. The facility census was 31. The Findings are: A. A record review of an admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 36 to the facility on 2/20/25 with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture around internal prosthetic right hip joint and age-related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture. An observation on 03/10/25 at 7:12 AM of medications for Resident 36 revealed Register Nurse (RN)-A administered the following: Acetaminophen 500 milligram (mg) take 2 tablets by mouth three times a day. Do not exceed 4 grams in one day. For pain control. Alendronate 70 mg take 1 tablet by mouth weekly with full glass of water on an empty stomach, sit up for 30 minutes, no food, medications, or beverages for 30 minutes. For age…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09B Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a mandatory comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) was accurate and coded to reflect Hospice [End of Life] Services for Resident 1 and no intravenous (IV) fluid use for Resident 10. The sample size reviewed was 13. The facility census at the time of the survey was 31. Findings are: A. Record review of the Clinical Census Report revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 was admitted to Hospice services on 1/19/22 Record review of Resident 1's Comprehensive Care Plan [CCP, a interdisciplinary comprehensive plan that detailed care of the resident] dated 1/8/24 revealed that Resident 1 had an overall decline in health and had a terminal prognosis related to advanced Alzheimer's disease. Record review of Resident 1's MDS dated [DATE] revealed diagnoses that included Non Alzheimer's Dementia. The MDS revealed that Resident 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 · Dcited before2024-04-04 · 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 12-006.10D Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of 5% or greater. Observations were made of 25 medications administered which revealed 2 errors resulting in an error rate of 8%. The medication errors affect 2 (Resident 8 and 25) of 3 sampled residents. The facility staff identified a census of 31. Findings are: Record Review of Resident 8's Medication Summary printed on 04-03-2024 revealed an order for mucous relief 600 mg by mouth twice a day. Do not crush. An observation on 04-03-2024 at 7:40 AM of Care Partner (CP)-B administering medication for Resident 8 revealed CP-B prepared mucous relief 600 mg by placing the medication into a med pouch, crushing medication and then mixing the medication in applesauce. CP-B took the prepared medication and administered it to Resident 8. An interview with CP-B on 04-03-2024 at 7:55 AM confirmed that CP-B should not have crushed the mucous relief tablet. An interview with Registered Nurse (RN)-E on 04-03-2024 at 1:37 PM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
175 NAC 12-006.17 Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure linens were not exposed to cross contamination as evidenced by placing washcloths into the sink and failed to perform hand hygiene and glove changes during personal cares for 2 residents (Resident 2 and 20) of 7 sampled residents observed. The facility identified census was 31. Findings are: Record Review of the facility policy Hand Hygiene and Glove Usage dated 03-09-2021 revealed the following: -Policy Statement: It is the policy of the facility that hand hygiene for residents and staff will be performed to avoid the spread of pathogens. The use of gloves is to protect from potential exposure to blood, body fluids and/or other potentially infectious material with providing care. Gloves do not eliminate the need for hand hygiene. Hand Hygiene is required before putting on gloves and after removing gloves. -Under the section identified as Definitions revealed the following: -Hand Hygiene-Clean hands at appropriate times: -Before and after providing care to or handling resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 175 NAC 12-006.09B Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS-a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities) reflected the current status of the resident at the time of the assessmenht regarding falls for Resident 16 and discharge for Resident 32. This affected 2 of 14 residents sampled for MDS accuracy. The facility census was 33. Findings are: A. An initial interview with Resident 16 on 3/15/23 at 11:02 AM revealed that the resident had fallen at home prior to the hospitalization resulting in the nursing home admission. A review of the resident's hospital History and Physical dated 2/20/23 revealed that the reason for the emergency room visit was that the resident had a GLF (Ground Level Fall), on ground for 36 hours. A review of Resident 16's Medical Diagnosis page printed 3/16/23 at 9:21 AM revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Unspecified Fall, Initial Encounter, and Fall on Same Level,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D3(5) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to follow the facility's bowel protocol to prevent constipation for one (Resident 1) of one sampled resident. The facility census was 33. Findings are: In an interview on 3/15/23 at 1:44PM, Resident 1 revealed that Resident 1 had gone four days at times without a bowel movement. Record review of Resident 1's 30 Day Bowel Elimination Task, dated 2/19/23 to 3/20/23, revealed that Resident 1 went from 2/20/23-2/22/23, 2/27/23-3/1/23, 3/5/23-3/8/23, 3/10/23-3/12/23 and 3/14/23-3/16/23 without a bowel movement. Record review of Resident 1's current orders, dated 3/20/23, revealed orders for the following: -PEG3350 powder (a medication to prevent constipation) mix 17 grams (1 capful) in 4-8 ounces of liquid every day as needed (PRN). Indication for use: constipation -Milk of Magnesia suspension (a medication to treat constipation) 1200/15 milliliters (ml), take 30ml once daily PRN for constipation -Enema…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-21 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 12-006.09D4 Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure a restorative nursing program per therapy recommendation was initiated for 1 (Resident 1) of 3 sampled residents. The facility census was 33. Findings are: In an interview on 3/15/23 at 1:43PM Resident 1 revealed that Resident 1 had not received restorative care. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS -a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities used to develop a resident's plan of care), dated 1/31/23, revealed that Resident 1 had an impairment to both of Resident 1's lower extremities and revealed no documentation that a restorative nursing program had been completed. A review of Resident 1's occupational therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed the recommendation for a restorative ROM (Range of Motion) program. The discharge summary further revealed that the information had been issued to the resident and to the restorative nursing staff with 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 | 4 of 5 | 4.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.7 | -0.7 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 |
| 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 |
| CARMEL-COOPER, BIANCA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 11/01/2022 |
| CRESS, ALLEN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 10/01/2022 |
| 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 07/01/2020 |
| 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 35 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 $334K 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 285280. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-12, 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.