SRMC Long Term Care, LLC dba Pole Creek Estates
1855 Greenwood Rd, Sidney, NE 69162 · Non profit - Other · 63 certified beds · (308) 254-7303 Medicaid only — no Medicare
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 (4/5)
- 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
- nursing-staff turnover (56%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 held steady at 3 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 | 8.1% | 19.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 4.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.8% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.6% | 18.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.6% | 19.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.5% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.2% | 25.9% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.8% | 20.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.28 | 1.81 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.45 | 1.92 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 63 beds and averages 60.1 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 2.86 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.75 is below 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 2.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.98 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% is well above 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-07-17 · 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 12-006.18(B)Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18(D) Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews; the facility failed to ensure staff followed proper glove use practices by changing gloves when contaminated or between tasks in accordance with facility policy and Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines during meal service to prevent the potential for cross-contamination. This had the potential to affect all 15 residents who reside within the Memory Care Unit (MCU). The facility identified a census of 60.Findings are: A review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene last revised 4/21/2025 revealed staff are required to perform hand hygiene after each resident contact, before and after glove use, and that glove use does not replace hand hygiene. A CDC guideline titled Clinical Safety: Hand Hygiene for Healthcare Workers dated 2/27/2024 revealed gloves are to be changed between tasks and after contact with potentially contaminated surfaces or residents. A continuous observation on 7/16/2025 from 11:55 AM through 12:20 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 · D2025-07-17 · 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 12-006.09(H) Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to identify and address potential adverse side effects of psychotropic (drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) medications for 1 (Resident 7) of 5 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 60.Findings are: A record review of the facility's policy Psychotropic Drug Use with a last revised date of 4/21/2025 revealed the effects of psychotropic medications on a resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being will be evaluated on an ongoing basis upon physician evaluation routinely and as needed, during the pharmacist's monthly medication regimen review, during Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used to determine a resident's functional capabilities and helps nursing home staff identify health problems) quarterly, annually, and with any significant change, and in accordance with nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-17 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(C)(ii) Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool used to determine a resident's functional capabilities and helps nursing home staff identify health problems) within 14 days of determining there had been a significant change (major decline in a resident's status that will usually not resolve) in the condition for 1 (Resident 7) of 1 sample resident. The facility identified a census of 60.Findings are: A record review of the facility's policy Resident Assessment last revised 6/17/2025, revealed the MDS Coordinator would be responsible for ensuring a comprehensive resident assessment was completed within 14 days of the facility determining there had been a significant change in the resident's status in accordance with the Resident Assessment Instruction (RAI) guidelines. A record review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual (RAI Manual, a document published by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-17 · 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 12-006.09(H)(v)Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide care, treatment, and ensure services were obtained for a hand contracture (a condition where the fingers bend towards the palm and cannot be straightened due to tightened tissues in the hand) for 1 (Resident 40) of 2 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 60. Findings are: A record review of [NAME] Healthcare's Contracture Management dated 11/1/2014, revealed limited mobility and the need for supportive therapies should be evaluated for on admission and at least quarterly. Treatment considerations were as follows:- Frequent, simple stretching, noting that even a few degrees of movement can help.- Consider positioning devices for long-term use such as splints. Positioning devices can ensure prolonged contracture management and limit further tone development.- Educate all staff and encourage to provide daily range of motion (ROM) stretching outside of therapy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-17 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H)(vi) and 175 NAC 12-006.14Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide assistance with eating and administration of medications that was consistent with the needs of an individual with a diagnosis of dementia for (a progressive disorder that primarily affects cognition, memory, and behaviors that includes agitation) 1 (Resident 40) of 4 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 60.Findings are: A record review of the facility's undated policy, Dementia Care revealed the purpose of the policy was to provide appropriate treatment and services to those with dementia to meet their highest practicable well-being. This goal would be met by developing a care plan for the resident that was individualized to their symptoms and implementing interventions that were effective in enhancing the resident's well-being. A record review of Resident 40's Problem List (as of 7/16/2025) revealed Resident 40 had a diagnosis of severe Alzheimer's dementia with agitation. A record review of Resident 40's Care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-05-29 · 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 12-006.11E Based on observations, interviews, and record review; the facility failed to a) ensure food products were disposed of prior to expiration dates, b) utilize handwashing as required to prevent potential food contamination during food preparation, and c) ensure food temperatures were maintained at least 135 degrees on the steam table as required during serving of meals. This had the potential to affect all residents who resided at the facility. The facility census was 43. Findings are: A. A record review of the facility policy General Requirements Food Supply with a last reviewed date of 2/6/2023 revealed food was to be stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. An initial observation 5/21/2024 at 8:55 AM of the kitchen's reach-in refrigerator revealed an opened container of Heavy Whipped Cream with an expiration date of 5/16/2024 and two opened containers of Hiland's Cottage Cheese with expiration dates of 5/19/2024. An interview on 5/21/2024 at 9:10 AM with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed the container of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-05-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.17D Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to implement hand hygiene as required while passing water pitchers to resident rooms, during medication administration, and during dining room services. This had the potential to affect all residents who resided within the facility. The facility census was 43. The Findings Are: A. An observation on 5/23/24 at 10:55 AM revealed Domestic Aide (DA)-H collecting old water pitchers and passing out new water pitchers to resident rooms. DA-H went into Resident 31's room and carried a water pitcher out of the room, sat it on the lower shelf of a rolling cart, and wrote down the total amount drank on a piece of paper. DA-H then carried a new water pitcher that had been setting on the top shelf of the rolling cart into Resident 18's room, came back out of the room with a different water pitcher, sat the pitcher on the lower shelf of the rolling cart and wrote the total amount drank on the paper. DA-H performed hand hygiene (HH) via Alcohol Based Hand Rub (ABHR). DA-H then…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09C Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for 2 (Residents 29, and 30) of 12 sampled residents. The facility census was 43. The Findings Are: A. A record review of facility policy Care Plan dated 5/15/24 revealed that the comprehensive care plan would describe the services that were being furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The policy also revealed the comprehensive care plan would describe care provided related to high-risk medications including, but not limited to psychotropics, anticoagulants, and antibiotics. The policy also revealed that care plans were to be updated with acute conditions or any unexplained change in the resident's condition (i.e., weight change, new diagnosis, change in pain), and with medication changes such as antibiotics, diuretics, and/or psychotropic or medications prescribed for sleep psychotropic benefit. A record review of Resident 29's diagnosis…
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 · D2024-05-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09 Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide ongoing care and services to address 1 (Resident 42) of 1 sampled resident's lower extremity edema (swelling). The facility census was 43. Findings Are: A record review of Resident 42's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning, dated 3/4/2024 revealed in Section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2/15, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Section I revealed the resident had a diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's dementia, and Section K revealed the resident had not had any significant weight changes in the prior 6 months. An observation on 5/21/24 at 12:23 PM revealed Resident 42 sitting in a chair in the dining room with their lower legs visible. Resident 42 had edema to both of their lower legs and was wearing TED Hose (compression stockings) on both legs. The TED Hose on the resident's right leg was rolled down, causing a moderate indentation approximately 3…
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 · D2024-05-29 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary antibiotic use for 2 (Resident 1 and 29) of 3 sampled residents. The facility census was 43. Findings are: A. A record review of Center for Disease Control's (CDC) document The Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship for Nursing Homes APPENDIX A: Policy and Practice Actions to Improve Antibiotic Use revealed Surveys of antibiotic use have shown that (Urinary Tract Infection) UTI prophylaxis accounts for a significant proportion of antibiotic prescriptions. Very few studies support antibiotic use for UTI prophylaxis, especially in older adults, and many studies have shown this antibiotic exposure increases risk of side effects and resistant organisms. Therefore, efforts to educate providers on the potential harm of antibiotics for UTI prophylaxis could reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure and improve resident outcomes. A record review of a Resident Master Information indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 7/1/2019. A record review of Resident 1's quarterly Minimum Data…
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 · D2024-05-29 · 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 175 NAC 12-006.10D Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews; the facility failed to administer medications at the right time for 2 (Resident 6 and 33) out of 9 sampled residents and ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%. There were 25 medication opportunities observed and there were 2 errors, this resulted in a medication errors rate of 8%. The facility census was 43. Findings are: A record review of the facility's Medication Administration policy with a last reviewed date of 2/15/2024 revealed to note directions in the comment section of the medication on the medication administration record during the first check. An observation on 5/23/2024 at 7:54 AM revealed Medication Aide (MA) - E had administered levothyroxine to Resident 33. Resident 33 had been in the dining room eating breakfast at the time of administration. A record review of Resident 33's levothyroxine order revealed administration instructions of administer at least 30 minutes before food. An observation on 5/23/2024 at 8:00 AM revealed MA-E had administered levothyroxine…
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 · D2023-04-19 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure reference number 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain a supporting diagnosis for the use of an antipsychotic medication (a medication utilized in the control of hallucinations, delusions, and disordered thinking) for one current sampled resident (Resident #33) out of 12 sampled Residents. The facility census was 44. Findings are: Record review of the Resident Master Information form for Resident #33 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. A review of the Problem list for Resident #33 revealed the resident had no qualifying diagnosis or identified problem that is listed as an approved treatment for Abilify (an antipsychotic medication). The problem list for Resident #33 revealed the following diagnoses; diabetes; hypertension; hypothyroidism; diabetic peripheral neuropathy; hyperlipidemia; glaucoma; osteoarthritis; atherosclerosis of both carotid arteries; falls; blind R eye; lung nodule; edema of leg; vasomotor rhinitis; humeral head…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in NE
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 28E302. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-17, 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.