Wilber Care Center
611 North Main, Wilber, NE 68465 · Government - City/county · 58 certified beds · (402) 821-2331 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (67%) 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 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 | 22.9% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.3% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 24.0% | 4.3% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 7.6% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.0% | 18.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.1% | 19.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.7% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.6% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.5% | 20.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 4.5% | 20.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 25.7% | 11.4% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.65 | 1.81 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.99 | 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.
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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 21% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.1–15.7 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.63 | 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 58 beds and averages 29.8 residents a day — about 51% occupied, or roughly 28 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.26 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.99 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 3.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.57 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 67% 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 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NA 12-006.09(I)Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement interventions to provide a safe environment when residents are identified as at risk for elopement (when an individual with dementia leaves a safe or supervised area without authorization or knowledge) for Resident 1, Resident 2, and Resident 3. This affected 3 of 3 residents sampled for elopement. The facility census was 33.Findings are:A.A record review of the facility's Elopement-Missing Resident policy last revised 03/01/2024 and in place at the time of Resident 1's elopement revealed that preventative measures were:-maintenance supervisor to check all doors weekly to assure the Wanderguard doors were functioning.-identify residents at risk for elopement and put a Wanderguard device on them.-at 10:00 PM the charge nurse or designated person would ensure all alarmed doors were working properly and that all exit doors were locked.B.A record review of Resident 1's Continuity of Care Document (CCD) created 06-10-2026 revealed the facility admitted the resident 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 · D2026-06-10 · 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
Licensure Reference 175 NAC 12-006.02(H)Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to submit an investigative report for Resident 1 within the required time frame. This affected 1 of 1 residents sample for reporting. The facility census was 33.Findings are:A record review of Resident 1's Continuity of Care Document created 06-10-2026 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/22/2026 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (the most common form of dementia, a brain disorder that slowly destroys a person's memory and thinking skills), and vascular dementia (a decline in thinking and reasoning skills caused by restricted or blocked blood flow to the brain).A record review of Resident 1's Resident Progress Notes revealed a note from 05/25/2026 at 5:53 PM that revealed the resident had eloped (when an individual with dementia leaves a safe or supervised area without authorization or knowledge) and that the resident's Wanderguard had not set off the door alarm on exit or entry to the building.A review of an undated preliminary report provided by the facility…
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 · Ecited before2026-05-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number NAC 12-006.18(B) Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to wear the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE-personal protective equipment-special equipment, including gloves, gown, masks and eye protection, worn to prevent exposure to hazards such as infectious materials), place soiled linen in a linen bag, ensure supplies were placed on a clean surface and throw a soiled glove in the trash can all during wound care for Resident 1, and failed to perform peri-care in a manner to prevent cross-contamination, and complete hand hygiene when changing gloves and after assisting with cares for Residents 11 and 12. This affected 3 out of 3 sampled residents. The facility census was 30. Findings are: A. Record review of the facility's Hand Hygiene policy, last revised 02/25 revealed staff are to wash hands vigorously, lather hands with soap and rub them together, creating friction to all surfaces, for a minimum of 20 seconds, or longer under a moderate stream…
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 before2026-05-21 · 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
License reference number NAC 12-007.03(K)Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe walkway in the hallway for ambulatory residents. This affected 1 out of 2 sampled residents but had the potential to affect all ambulatory residents. The facility census was 30.Findings are: A.Record review on 05/19/2026 at 2:58 PM revealed Resident 32 had an admission date of 02/07/2025. Record review of Resident 32's 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) dated 05/07/2026 revealed that Resident 32 had moderately impaired cognition and wandered daily. The MDS also revealed Resident 32 had vascular dementia, Alzheimer's Disease, and anxiety. Record review of Resident 32's care plan revealed that Resident 32 wandered without purpose. The facility had placed interventions on the care plan stating Resident 32 does wander and staff are to redirect Resident 32, and staff were to avoid over stimulation for Resident 32. Record review…
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 · D2025-07-02 · 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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.02(H) Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to report suspicions of abuse to the state agency within the required timeframe. This affected 2 residents, (Resident 1 and Resident 3). The facility census was 32. Findings are: A. A review of the facility's Investigation Report Abuse-Physical sent to the state agency's email on 02/20/2025 at 2:54 PM revealed that on 02/19/2025 at 4:30 PM a bruise was discovered on Resident 3's right back/hip and on 02/20/2025 at 1:59 PM the bruise was reported to Adult Protective Services (APS). A review of an undated summary written by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that Resident 3 had been unable to explain how the bruise happened. Further review revealed that the DON did not observe the area until 02/20/2025 at 1:00 PM, and the incident was not reported to APS until 02/20/2025 at 1:59 PM. An interview on 07/02/2025 at 2:31 PM with the DON confirmed that the report was called to APS more than two hours after the injury was discovered. B. A review of the facility's Investigation…
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 · F2025-01-22 · tag F0730 — widespreadObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for 4 of 5 Nurse Aides sampled. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 37. Findings are: A record review of the employee file for Medication Aide (MA) D with a hire date of 09/19/2009 revealed a Staff Evaluation Report (SER) dated 09/19/2023 and signed by both the evaluator and the employee. A record review of the employee file for MA E with a hire date of 04/16/2022 revealed there was no SER available. A record review of the employee file for MA F with a hire date of 09/10/1998 revealed an SER dated 09/19/2023 and signed by both the evaluator and the employee. A record review of the employee file for MA J with a hire date of 05/18/2021 revealed an SER dated 08/17/2023 and signed by both the evaluator and the employee. A record review of the employee file for MA K with a hire date of 01/26/2022 revealed an SER dated 01/23/2024. This was signed by the evaluator only, and there was no documentation of discussion of review 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.
- Potential for harm · F2025-01-22 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — widespreadEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04(B)(ii)(1) Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide the required annual in-service training for 3 of 5 Nurse Aides sampled. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 37. Findings are: A review of the undated User Learning document provided for Medication Aide (MA) D revealed no documentation of any training completed after 10/08/2022. A review of the undated User Learning document provided for MA E revealed some training done in 2024. The Administrator (ADM) had written how many hours the individual courses were, and the total hours provided added up to 6.25 hours. A review of the undated User Learning document provided for MA F revealed no documentation of any training completed after 05/04/2023. An interview on 01/21/2025 at 3:08 PM with the ADM confirmed that MA D had no documentation of training more recent than 2022 and MA F had no documentation of training more recent than 2023. The ADM further confirmed that the hours written on MA E's User Learning record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.(18)(D) Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene (using an alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) or washing hands with soap and water) was completed in a manner to prevent cross-contamination during peri-care (washing the genitals and anal area) for Resident 8 and Resident 25 and during wound care for Resident 12. This affected 3 of 4 residents observed for peri-care and wound care. The facility census was 37. A record review of the facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy dated 12/05/2023 revealed that hand hygiene should be completed in the following situations: Before and after direct contact with residents; Before handling clean or soiled dressings; Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care; After contact with blood or body fluids; After handling used dressings; and After removing gloves. The policy further revealed that glove use did not replace hand hygiene and that the procedure for washing hands with soap and water included rubbing hands…
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 · D2025-01-22 · 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 12-006.09(B) Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS-a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities) regarding use of an anti-anxiety medication for Resident 8 and for use of a Bilevel Positive Airway (BiPAP-a machine used to deliver positive airway to a person's airway to prevent it from closing during sleep) for Resident 18. This affected 2 (Resident 8 and Resident 18) of 16 residents sampled for MDS accuracy. The facility census was 37. Findings are: A. A review of Resident 8's Continuity of Care Document (CCD) created 01/16/2025 revealed an admission date of 05/22/2023 and a diagnosis of anxiety. A review of Resident 8's Physician Order Report from 12/16/2024 to 01/16/2025 revealed an order for lorazepam (an anti-anxiety medication) 0.5 milligrams once a day by mouth for anxiety. A review of Resident 8's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Section N-Medications was not marked…
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 · D2025-01-22 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a trauma based assessment for 1 (Resident 7) of 5 sampled residents. The facility census was 37. Findings are: A record review of Resident 7's Significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS -a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities used to develop a resident's plan of care) dated 9/20/2024 revealed an admission date of 5/29/2024, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function) score of 1 which suggests severe cognitive impairment, and diagnosis of Anxiety, Depression and frequent pain. A record review of Resident 7's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP- written instructions needed to provide effective and person centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care) dated 12/16/2024 revealed no history of trauma. In an interview on 1/15/2025 at 2:59 PM with Resident 7's representative…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-13 · 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 12-006.09 Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify a resident representative and provider regarding a change in condition for 1 (Resident 37) of 1 sampled residents. The facility census was 35. Findings are: A record review of Residents 37's Face Sheet dated [DATE] revealed Resident 37 had the following diagnoses: hypertension, Pneumonia, Flu, COVID-19, arthritis, cystitis, Generalized Weakness, Peripheral vascular disease, Mixed hyperlipidemia, Hypokalemia, depressive disorder, and Anxiety disorder. A record review of the form titled Wilber Care Center Documentation Guidelines, last updated 10/23 revealed: - document in progress notes any cognitive, medical changes that effect a residents daily functioning. This will be documented every shift until resolved and/or addressed by a physician. Record review of Resident 37's Progress Notes revealed on [DATE] at 11:30 PM the facility staff reported to the nurse that Resident 37 was having an emesis.…
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 before2024-02-13 · 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 12-006.09D7b Based interview, and record review; the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the root-cause of falls and failed to develop and implement effective interventions to minimize and/or prevent falls for 1 (Resident 23) of 1 sampled resident. The facility census was 35. Findings are: Interview on 2/7/24 at 10:38 AM with Resident 23's resident representative (RR) revealed that Resident 23 had a fall two weeks ago and scraped up Resident 23's left arm and elbow. The RR further revealed that Resident 23 walks independently without a walker or cane and is unsteady at times. Observation on 2/7/24 at 11:40 AM revealed Resident 23, with no assistive device, standing next to the window at the nurse's station talking with the staff. Interview on 2/12/24 at 9:38 AM the Medication Aide (MA) revealed that Resident 23 can walk independently and at times Resident 23 is unsteady. MA further revealed that Resident 23 has attempted to assist Resident 23's…
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 · D2023-04-11 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 175 NAC 12-006.05(5) Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to Resident 23 and Resident 6 and/or their representatives upon transfer to the emergency room (ER). The facility failed to notify the Ombudsman (a state official who works with nursing home and assisted living residents who helps answer resident concerns and complaints and advocates for resident rights and their well-being) of transfer for Resident 23 and Resident 6. This affected 2 of 2 residents sampled for hospitalization. The facility census was 33. Findings are: A. Record review of Resident 23's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed the resident was sent to the ER on [DATE] with respiratory complaints and returned to the facility on 3/24/23. Resident 23's EHR revealed Resident 23 was sent back to the ER with a change in responsiveness and a decreased oxygen saturation (an indication of how well the lungs are working) and was admitted to the hospital. An interview on 04/06/23 at 10:48 AM…
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 before2023-04-11 · 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
B. An observation on 04/05/23 at 9:00 AM revealed Resident 6's CPAP mask was laying on top of CPAP machine without being covered. An observation on 04/06/23 at 11:25 AM Resident 6's CPAP mask was laying on top of CPAP machine without being covered. Record review of CPAP/BIPAP Cleaning Policy dated 3/7/11 did not mention how to store a CPAP mask to prevent contamination. Interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 4/6/23 at 1:40 PM revealed that the resident's CPAP mask was not being stored in a manner to prevent contamination. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/06/23 at 2:00 PM revealed that the resident's CPAP mask was not being stored in an manner to prevent contaminiation. Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to put measures in place to prevent cross-contamination (the transfer of disease-causing organisms from one surface to another) by failing to store oxygen cannulas (the part of the tubing that goes into the nostrils) for Resident 25 and a CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure - a treatment that uses mild air…
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 RURAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENT — 9 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 | 2 of 5 | 3.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WILBER CARE CENTER INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 01/10/1967 |
| DREYER, BARBARA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/15/2006 |
| LINHART, CHRISTINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2008 |
| RURAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENT INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/20/1994 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 285172. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-22, 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.