North DakotaBismarck

Baptist Health & Rehab

3400 Nebraska Drive, Bismarck, ND 58503 · Burleigh County · 140 certified beds · avg 133 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1978

Part of chain: CASSIA (16 facilities, chain avg rating 4.4★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$35,323
Fines, last 3 years
5.16
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Jul 22, 2025 · F-0695 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.

Why it matters: Mistakes in breathing care can quickly become life-threatening for residents who depend on oxygen or equipment.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Jul 15, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jan 23, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Feb 14, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jan 2, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Dec 20, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jan 31, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 6, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)

All citations in the current public record (14)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jul 22, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · from a complaint
Apr 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Apr 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Jan 23, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jan 23, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Jan 2, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Jan 31, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202481G ▲
202563J ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

3 fines totaling $35,323.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jul 22, 2025Fine$17,345
Jan 23, 2025Fine$11,190
Jan 2, 2025Fine$6,788

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityNorth Dakota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.165.153.95top 49% in North Dakota; top 11% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.741.090.69bottom 16% in North Dakota; top 32% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.684.433.50top 41% in North Dakota; top 10% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.380.590.48bottom 16% in North Dakota; bottom 47% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)49.348.845.8top 46% in North Dakota; bottom 39% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)36.040.342.9top 48% in North Dakota; top 40% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 5.09, RN 0.73, weekend 4.62. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Church related

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Elim Care INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%11/26/2009
Berg, DeannaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2019
Cassia ServicesOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2020
Dahl, RobertIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/26/2009
Grosz, GeraldIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/11/2013
Grubb, DarrelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2013
Grupp, JamesIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/09/2009
Just, MichaelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/23/2020
Kern, MatthewIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/28/2019
Malard, MaysilIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE03/29/2011
Sotebeer, DennisIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Tangedahl, GuyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Wright, BrianIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/23/2020
Youngquist, KathrynIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2009

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
St Gabriel's Community1.5 miBismarck, ND★★★★★4/5
St Vincent's - a Prospera Community1.9 miBismarck, ND★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Good Samaritan Society Augusta Place a Prospera Co1.9 miBismarck, ND★★★★★4/5
Missouri Slope2.2 miBismarck, ND★★★★☆3/5
Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe a Prospera Co5.4 miMandan, ND★★★☆☆2/5
Sunset Drive - a Prospera Community7.6 miMandan, ND★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Dakota Alpha7.6 miMandan, ND★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Bismarck →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 355058.