Wisner Care Center
1105 9th Street, Wisner, NE 68791 · Government - City · 38 certified beds · (402) 529-3286 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
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 | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 3 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 | 8.8% | 19.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.7% | 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 | 9.3% | 4.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.3% | 18.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.3% | 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 | 10.1% | 4.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.4% | 25.9% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.7% | 20.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.5% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.21 | 1.81 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.25 | 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.
50.8% 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 25 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.10 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 6% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 50.8%CMS range 34.5–63.5 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 6.5–16.5 | 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 — 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 | 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 | 0.97 | 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 38 beds and averages 33.1 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.51 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 3.02 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.16 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.85 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 51% 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18 Based on observations, interview and record review; the facility failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions for Resident 15. The sample size was 15 with a census of 33. A. Review of the facility policy Enhanced Barrier Precautions implemented on 5/17/24 revealed the following: -Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) refers to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of Multi-Drug-Resistant Organisms (MDRO) that utilizes gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities, -an order for EBP would be obtained for residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a MDRO, or had an infection or colonization with a Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-targeted MDRO, -Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for EBP was only necessary when performing high-contact care activities, -the infection preventionist would incorporate periodic monitoring and assessment of adherence to determine the need for additional training, -High-contact resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-02-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.17D Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to: 1) complete hand hygiene and change gloves to prevent possible cross contamination during the provision of incontinence cares for Resident 14; 2) ensure Transmission Based Precautions (TBP-additional control measures used to prevent the transmission of colonized infectious agents) were implemented for Resident 23; and 3) implement measures to prevent the growth of Legionella (severe type of pneumonia/lung infection caused by bacteria which can be found in water) and/or waterborne pathogens in the facility. The facility census was 25. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Hand Washing with a reviewed date of 2/1/23 revealed hand washing and sanitizing were the most important means of preventing infections. Hand washing was to be completed: -whenever hands were visibly soiled, -after touching inanimate sources that are likely to be contaminated, -after prolonged contact with a resident, -after contact with mucous membranes, blood, body fluids, excretions,…
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 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(8) Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to report an allegation of potential staff to resident abuse for 1 (Resident 11) of 1 sampled resident to the required state agency. The facility census was 25. Findings are: A. Review of the facility Abuse, Neglect or Misappropriation of Property policy (reviewed 3/18/21) revealed the facility was to ensure all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect or abuse and misappropriation of resident property were reported immediately to the Administrator/Director of Nursing (DON) and to other officials in accordance with State Law. The following procedure was identified for suspected staff to resident abuse or neglect: -staff to immediately intervene and take steps to protect the resident. -allegation to be reported to the state survey agency within 2 hours if serious bodily injury/abuse or within 24 hours for all other cases. -employee suspected of abuse was to be immediately reassigned or suspended until findings of the allegation had been reviewed. -investigate 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 · D2024-02-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09C Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans to reflect the current status for 2 of 16 sampled residents (Resident 13's antipsychotic medication [a type of psychoactive medication which alters chemicals in the brain to affect changes in behavior, mood, and emotion] and Resident 16's self-administration of medication. The facility census was 25. Findings are: A. Review of Resident 13's Minimum Data Set [MDS- a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used to develop resident care plans] dated 12/30/23 revealed diagnoses of: cancer, stroke, Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) last 30 days, left sided weakness, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), dementia and depression. The assessment further indicated the resident was taking antipsychotic, anti-anxiety, and antidepressant medications. Review of Resident 13's Care Plan with a printed date of 2/8/24 revealed the resident was taking an antipsychotic (Seroquel), an…
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 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 12-006.10A2 Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident 5) of 1 sampled resident's insulin was prepared and administered according to standards of practice. The facility census was 25. Findings are: During an observation on 2/12/24 at 7:20 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN-M) removed an insulin pen from the medication cart, removed the cap from the insulin pen, wiped the rubber seal with an alcohol wipe and screwed a needle cap onto the pen. LPN-M then turned the dial on the pen to the ordered dose of 60 units of Basaglar Kwikpen Insulin. LPN-M applied gloves to both hands, cleansed Resident 5's site of injection and administered the insulin. LPN-M then returned to the medication cart and disposed of the needle, removed gloves, sanitized hands and documented the insulin administration in the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR). Record review of the facility policy Insulin Administration dated 10/2017 revealed the purpose of the policy was to provide guidelines for the safe…
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 F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D3(1) Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to provide care and services according to standards of practice, for the prevention of urinary tract infections for 1 (Resident 13) of 1 sampled resident who had an indwelling urinary catheter [a flexible plastic tube inserted into the bladder that remains in place to provide continuous urinary drainage]. The facility census was 25. Findings are: Review of the facility Policy Catheter Care, Urinary dated 11/12/23 revealed the purpose of the policy was to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. The procedure included the following: 1. Place clean equipment/supplies so they can be reached easily. 2. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 3. Have a package of wipes within easy reach. 4. Position the resident on his/her back. 5. Put gloves on. 6. Place a bed protector under the resident. 7. Wash the resident's genitalia and perineum [area located between the genitals and anus] thoroughly with wipes. 8. Dispose of soiled wipes into trash receptacle. 9.…
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 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
Based on record review and interview; the facility to ensure residents received trauma informed care related to diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and to identify potential triggers as well as resident preferences to prevent and/or mitigate re-traumatization for 1 (Resident 17) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 25. Findings include: A. Review of the facility policy Trauma Informed Care with an implemented date of 5/9/23 revealed it was the policy of the facility to provide care and services which met professional standards using culturally competent approaches which accounted for experiences and preferences. The facility was to use a multi-pronged approach to identify a resident's history of trauma and cultural preferences. This was to include asking the resident about potential triggers or stressors regarding a previous traumatic event. These approaches were to be used to address the needs of a trauma survivor and to minimize potential triggers and/or re-traumatization. The following guidelines were identified: - ensuring residents have a sense 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 · D2024-02-13 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to have indications for continued use of an antibiotic medication for 1 (Resident 14) of 6 sampled residents. The facility staff identified a census of 25. Findings are: Record review of the facility policy Antibiotic Stewardship Program with a reviewed date of 9/26/22 revealed the following: -The goal of the Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) was to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics, to maximize treatment outcomes and minimize unintended consequences of antibiotic therapy. The ASP aimed to improve antibiotic prescribing practices through the development and implementation of antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. -The antibiotic Stewardship Committee had been established to provide support and oversee activities of the Antibiotic Stewardship Plan. The committee and the ASP would be part of the Infection Prevention and Control Program, and outcomes would be reported to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee, and in turn…
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 F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medications [a type of psychoactive medication which alters chemicals in the brain to affect changes in behavior, mood, and emotion] had the required diagnosis or documentation of specific behaviors for 1 (Resident 13) of 5 sampled residents. The facility census was 25. Findings are: Review of the facility's Psychotropic Drug Policy last reviewed 9/1/22 revealed antipsychotic medication therapy shall be used only when necessary to treat a specific condition. Psychoactive drugs are prescribed to control and improve mood, mental status and/or behaviors. These medications fall into the following categories: -Anti-anxiety and hypnotic drugs are used for relief of anxiety and to treat insomnia. -Antipsychotics are used to treat mental illness such as schizophrenia, psychotic depression and manic disorders. -Anti-depressant drugs. Targeted behaviors will be monitored weekly with resident reviews and with care plan meetings on residents who are 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 · D2024-02-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10A4 Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure medications were safely administered and secured according to standards of practice for 1 (Resident 16) of 11 sampled residents. The facility census was 25. Findings are: Record review of the facility policy Medication Administration dated 12/13/24 revealed, the administration of medications to residents would be completed by a licensed healthcare professional and the nurse administering the medication shall stay with the resident until the medication is administered, unless otherwise care planned. A resident may self-administer a medication per self-administration of medication. Ability to self-administer a medication must be assessed and documented in the resident Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and care planned. Medications left in the resident's room must be secured in a red medication box for the resident's personal use. Self-administered medications must be monitored by the charge nurse for…
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 · E2023-01-04 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number: 175 NAC 12-006.06 Based on interviews and record reviews; the facility failed to address and to resolve Resident Council concerns regarding call light response times and grievances by Resident 23 regarding the provision of baths. The total sample size was 18 and the census was 30. Findings are: A. Review of the facility policy Grievances/Complaints with a revision date of 10/27/19 revealed it was the policy of the facility to investigate all grievances and complaints reported to the facility and to come to a resolution with all involved parties. The following procedures were identified: -residents were to be notified of their rights to voice a grievance to the facility upon admission and at least monthly in Resident Council; -the person filing the grievance or complaint was to receive a written or verbal notification regarding the steps taken to resolve the grievance from the appropriate department head in a timely manner; -the person filing the grievance will be asked if they agree with the action taken and if they feel the issue is resolved. If they do…
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 · D2023-01-04 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number: 175 NAC 12-006.09D1c Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to provide bathing assistance for 2 residents (Residents 23 and 24) who required assistance with activities of daily living. The facility census was 30 and the sample size was 18. Findings are: A. Review of Resident 23's current Care Plan dated 7/26/2022 revealed the resident required assistance with activities of daily living related to pain, weakness, recent weight loss and a diagnosis of Leukemia in remission. In addition, the resident was at risk for impaired skin integrity and required assistance with bathing 1-2 times a week. Review of Resident 23's medical record revealed the resident had not received a bath for more than 7 days between the following dates: -10/4/22 and 10/12/22, a total of 8 days; -10/28/22 and 11/10/22, a total of 13 days; -11/10/22 and 11/18/22, a total of 8 days; -11/23/22 and 12/1/22, a total of 8 days; and -12/20/22 and 12/29/22, a total of 9 days. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN)-B on 12/29/22 at 11:25 a.m., RN-B confirmed residents…
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 · D2023-01-04 · 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
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D7 Based on observations, record review and interviews; the facility failed to implement interventions and to revise and/or develop new interventions to prevent ongoing falls for Resident 24. The facility census was 30 and the sample size was 5. Findings are: A. Review of the facility Resident Fall policy with revision date 1/16/21 revealed all falls were to be documented on an Incident Report. Staff were to investigate the fall for probable cause and an immediate intervention was to be put into place to prevent a re-occurrence. B. Review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 12/1/22 revealed diagnoses of anxiety, depression, Alzheimer's dementia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and cancer. The MDS identified the following regarding Resident 24: -moderately impaired cognition; -required extensive staff assistance with transfers, bed mobility, dressing and toilet use; -incontinent of bowel and bladder; and -frequent incidence of falling since the previous…
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 · D2023-01-04 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-005.09D8b Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to provide/implement interventions to prevent ongoing weight loss for 1 (Resident 17) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 30. Findings are: Review of Resident 30's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 10/20/22 revealed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis, Crohn' disease, dementia, anxiety and depression. The assessment indicated the resident's cognitive was severely impaired, the resident had behaviors which included delusions and wandering, was independent with eating and drinking and had a weight of 137 pounds (lbs.). The resident was identified as having a weight loss of 5 percent (%) in 1 month or a loss of 10% or more in the last 6 months and was not on a physician prescribed weight loss regimen. Review of a report of the resident's weights revealed the following: -weight on 6/7/22 was 143 lbs. -weight on 7/7/22 was 136 lbs. (down 7 lbs. or a 5% loss 1 month). Review of the resident's current Care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CITY OF WISNER CITY CLERK TREAS | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 06/12/2025 |
| GOBAR, CATHERINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 12/05/2022 |
| JAMES, STEPHANIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/02/2019 |
| MEYER, BARRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 12/02/2024 |
| PARKER, LEROY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 12/05/2022 |
| PHILLIPS, LAUREN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/03/2023 |
| SCHWEERS, ANDREW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 12/02/2024 |
| SODEN, TERRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 12/05/2022 |
| ECKMANN, RHETT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/30/2016 |
| NYMAN, SAMMYE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/16/2025 |
| URBANEC, SUSAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/31/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 285151. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-04, 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.