Stanton Health Center
301 17th Street, Stanton, NE 68779 · Non profit - Church related · 70 certified beds · (402) 439-2111 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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 | 4 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 |
| 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 improved from 2 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 | 30.7% | 19.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.6% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 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 | 2.1% | 4.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.2% | 18.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.6% | 19.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.2% | 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 | 32.8% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.4% | 20.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 53.6% | 75.9% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.73 | 1.81 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.09 | 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.
38.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 28 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 24 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 38.0%CMS range 25.7–55.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 6.7–16.4 | 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 | 45.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 41.7% | 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 | 41.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 95.8% | 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 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 70 beds and averages 57.8 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.63 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.93 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% 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 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-05-25 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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 Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR- an emergency procedure used to restart a person's heartbeat and breathing after one or both have stopped) for Resident 55 when the resident was found with no pulse and was not breathing. The sample size was 20 and the facility census was 55. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility policy Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with a revision date of [DATE] revealed the facility adhered to resident's rights to formulate an Advanced Directive (legal documents that provide instructions for medical care that go into effect when a person cannot communicate their own wishes). In accordance with those rights, the facility implemented guidelines regarding CPR. In addition, the facility followed current American Heart Association guidelines regarding CPR and if a resident experienced cardiac arrest (loss of heartbeat), the facility provided basic life support, including CPR,…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-05-25 · 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 12-006.09D Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify a physician of a significant change in Resident 55's condition. The sample size was 20 and the facility census was 55. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Notification of Physicians and Families on Change of Condition dated 2/2/22 revealed the following; -The policy aimed to promote effective communication, prompt medical attention, and collaboration with families to ensure the well-being and appropriate care of residents, and to establish a systematic approach for identifying and promptly notifying physicians and families about significant changes in resident's conditions. -to assure timely medical assessment and intervention for residents experiencing changes in health status, and -to facilitate collaboration and communication between healthcare providers and families regarding the care and treatment of residents. -All staff members involved in resident care, including nurses, caregivers, and administrative personnel were responsible for adhering to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.05(H)Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure residents were protected from residents with adverse behaviors for 2 (Residents 5 and 10 ) of 11 sampled residents. The facility census was 52.Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Property with a reviewed date of 7/15/25 revealed the policy was a mechanism for the prompt identification, investigation and reporting of any allegation or complaint of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. If a staff member witnessed or suspected resident to abuse resident, neglect or any type of crime, the staff were to immediately intervene and take steps to protect the resident. Staff were to keep residents and other staff away from any abusive/aggressive residents. The policy indicated allegations of potential abuse were to be immediately reported to a supervisor, the facility Administrator or designee and in accordance with the state and federal laws. If there was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-27 · 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 NAC 12-006.09Based on observations, interviews and record reviews; the facility failed to implement interventions to manage behaviors for 1 (Resident 1) of 11 sampled residents. The facility census was 52. Findings are:A. Review of the facility policy Behavior Management Program, last revised 7/13/25 revealed residents who displayed mental or psychosocial adjustment difficulty would receive appropriate services in an attempt to correct the problem. The guidelines included:-behaviors would be identified through the RAI (Resident Assessment Instruction Manual- a standardized comprehensive guide to evaluate resident's clinical, functional, and cognitive status) process and through staff interaction;-further assessments to identify and manage behaviors may be conducted;-identified behaviors should be evaluated through frequency, duration and intensity for a pattern;-the Interdisciplinary Team would decide which residents needed a behavior management program vs residents that were care planned with appropriate interventions by evaluating the behavior…
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 · D2025-07-10 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(S) Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure Resident 46's dignity was maintained related to a transfer to the bathhouse. The sample size was 2 and the census was 49. Findings are: A record review of the undated facility Resident Rights provided to residents at the time of admission, revealed that all residents have the right to be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of his or her dignity and individuality, including privacy in treatment and in care for his or her personal needs.During an observation on 7/8/25 at 8:17 AM, Resident 46 was positioned in a bath chair in the corridor outside of the resident's room. The resident's lower legs and feet were uncovered and were hanging suspended from the seat of the chair. The resident wore a hospital gown with the back open which exposed the resident's lower back and buttocks. The resident's legs, feet, back and buttocks were bare and were visible to any other residents, staff and/or visitors who were in the corridor or who were on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-10 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(H) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to report, investigate, and submit a completed investigation report related to an allegation of potential abuse to the State Agency within the required time frame for Residents 3 and 39. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 49. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Property last revised 1/23/24 revealed the facility had a zero tolerance policy and mandated employees to immediately report any allegations/suspicions of:-any type of crime committed against a resident,-Resident abuse,-willful resident neglect, -misappropriation of resident property, and-exploitation of a resident. The Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), or designee would interview the person reporting, any witnesses, the resident and the charge nurse, review the residents medical record, interview all staff members that had contact with the resident, interview the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-10 · 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 12-006.09Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to complete neurological assessments (assessment of motor and sensory skills, hearing, speech, vision, coordination, and balance to determine a potential injury or change in status) after unwitnessed falls for 1 (Resident 46) of 4 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 49.Findings are:Record review of the facility policy Resident Fall Assessments with a revision date of 8/24 revealed after an unwitnessed fall or a fall in which a head injury was identified, the staff were to complete a neurological assessment per policy:-every 15 minutes for 1 hour,-every hour for 4 hours, and-every 4 hours for 19 hours. Record review of Resident 46's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a comprehensive assessment tool used to develop a resident's care plan) dated 5/15/25 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of non-traumatic brain dysfunction, heart failure, diabetes, Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-10 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18(B)Based on observations, record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure respiratory care equipment was cleaned and stored in a sanitary manner to prevent the potential for cross contamination for Resident 6. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 49. Findings are: Record review of the facility policy Respiratory Equipment Storage and Sanitation with a revision date of 7/1/24 revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure respiratory equipment was stored and sanitized in a manner that prevented cross contamination, protected the resident's health and complied with infection prevention and control standards. Nebulizer (a drug delivery device used to administer medication in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs) equipment was to be dissembled and thoroughly rinsed after use, set out to dry on a clean dry surface and disinfected per policy using an approved disinfectant or sterilization method. Once the equipment was dry and ready for storage, it was to be placed in a clean, labeled, anti-microbial storage 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 · D2024-06-13 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04C3a(6) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to notify Resident 2's Primary Care Physician (PCP) of the resident's change in fluid buildup, mental status, and behaviors. The sample size was 1 and the facility census was 62. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Provider Notice of Adverse Event and/or Change in Condition with a review date of 6/5/23 revealed the facility staff were to assure timely and appropriate notification to the PCP regarding changes in condition and adverse events. A change in condition was defined as any significant alteration in a resident's physical, mental, or emotional state that may require medical intervention or adjustment of the resident's care plan. B. Review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning ) dated 3/28/24 revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes, cerebral palsy, depression, and anxiety. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-13 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
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 09(G)(i) Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete the required Discharge Summary for Resident 63. The sample size was 2 and the facility census was 62. Findings are: Review of the facility policy Transfer and Discharge with a revision date of 5/21/24 revealed the following: -The facility permitted each resident to remain in the facility and not initiate transfer and or discharge except in limited circumstances. -A Resident initiated transfer or discharge meant the resident and or their representative provide notice of their intent to leave the facility. -The facility evaluated and determined the level of care needed for residents leaving the facility, and -completed a Discharge Summary including a recapitulation of the resident's stay, a final summary of the resident's status, reconciliation of the resident's medications and a post discharge plan of care. Review of Resident 63's Admission/Discharge Record dated 6/13/24 revealed the resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-13 · 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 12-006.09 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow Resident 2's physician order regarding a fluid restriction, and Resident 3's physician orders related to daily weights and use of an as needed diuretic. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 62. The findings are: A. Review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning ) dated 3/28/24 revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of coronary artery disease, paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes, cerebral palsy, depression, and anxiety. The assessment identified the resident was having behavior symptoms not directed at others (physical symptoms such as hitting or scratching self, pacing, rummaging, public sexual acts, disrobing in public, throwing, or smearing food or bodily waste and verbal/vocal symptoms like screaming or making disruptive sounds) and rejection of cares. The assessment further indicated the resident was receiving…
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 · D2024-06-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D2b Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to provide assessment and monitoring of Resident 114's pressure ulcer (injuries to the skin and the tissue below the skin due to pressure) to ensure healing. The sample size was 3 and the facility census was 62. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Skin Care and Management with a revision date of 4/23/24 revealed the facility had established a systemic approach for prevention and management of pressure ulcers which included prompt assessment and treatment; intervention to reduce or remove underlying risk factors; and monitoring/modifying interventions as appropriate. A Licensed Nurse was to conduct a full body assessment on all residents at admission/readmission then weekly and after any newly identified pressure ulcer or skin alteration. Findings were to be documented in the medical record and the Primary Care Physician (PCP) notified. Assessments of any new pressure ulcers were to be…
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 before2024-06-13 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18(B) Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to maintain infection prevention measures for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-an infection control measure designed to reduce transmission of Multiple Drug Resistant Organisms (MDRO's-bacteria that have become resistant to certain antibiotics) during the provision of wound care for Residents 22 and 52, failed to implement EBP and best practice for catheter care to prevent potential infections for Resident 52, and failed to complete hand hygiene at appropriate intervals during the provision of care for Residents 22 and 52. The sample size was 20 and the facility census was 62. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Infection Prevention and Control Program with a revision date of 2/8/24 revealed the facility established and maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, that helped to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, per accepted…
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 · D2023-05-25 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(8) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to investigate and submit a report of the unexpected death of Resident 55 to the State Agency within the required time frames. The sample size was 20 and the facility census was 55. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Property Policy dated [DATE] revealed the following; -The facility had a zero-tolerance policy for any type of crime committed against a resident, resident abuse, willful resident neglect, misappropriation of resident property, resident exploitation, and mandated all employees to immediately report an allegation and/or suspicions of those items. In addition, the facility did not continue to employ any employee found guilty of those items. -The facility took steps to prevent resident abuse, neglect, and misappropriation through screening of potential residents, background screening of potential employees and or volunteers, refrained from…
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 · D2023-05-25 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09A1 Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to complete a revised level 1 Pre-admission Assessment and Resident Review (PASRR- a federally mandate screening assessment used to determine appropriate placement for individuals with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) or an Intellectual Disability (ID)) for Resident 34. The sample size was 20 and the facility census was 55. Findings are: Record review of the facility policy Admissions and Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review dated 3/5/22 revealed the facility's purpose was to establish a standardized process that facilitated comprehensive screening, assessment and decision making to determine eligibility and appropriate level of care determinations, for SMI or ID persons seeking admission to the nursing home, while promoting quality of care and support services. -Level 1 Evaluation or the initial screening would be conducted by a qualified mental health or healthcare provider to determine the presence 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 · D2023-05-25 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure assessments were completed for Resident 53 to assess for potential adverse effects from antipsychotic medications (medications which alter consciousness, mood and thoughts). The sample size was 5 and the census was 55. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) Assessment Policy implemented on 2/2/22 revealed the following; -the purpose was to identify and monitor medication-induced movement disorders in residents, -a baseline assessment would be conducted for residents who were newly admitted to the nursing home and were prescribed medications with known movement disorder risks, -the baseline assessment would be completed within 2 weeks of admission, at least every 6 months, or within 10 days of medication initiation, - the AIMS assessment would evaluate the face, limbs, or trunk with severity scored on a scale, and -the AIMS assessment results would be…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CITY OF STANTON NURSING HOME | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/31/1968 |
| HIRSCHMAN, BRYON | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2015 |
| LAMMLI LOCKE, SONYA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/03/2022 |
| CASKEY, RAE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| LARSON, PAT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2018 |
| MOORE, KATHY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2018 |
| PADEN, COLLEEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2017 |
| POHLMAN, AMY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2014 |
| VOECKS, KYLE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2015 |
| BRANDOW, JONATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NE
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Nebraska Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 285102. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-10, 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.