North DakotaOakes

Good Samaritan Society - Oakes

213 N 9th St, Oakes, ND 58474 · Dickey County · 46 certified beds · avg 44 residents/day · certified since Jan 14, 1991

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY (92 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$8,281
Fines, last 3 years
3.74
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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 · Oct 15, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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: Oct 6, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

All citations in the current public record (19)

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
Jun 18, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Jan 7, 2026D · 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.
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.
Jan 7, 2026D · 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.
Oct 15, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Oct 15, 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
Jul 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Oct 3, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Oct 3, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Oct 3, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Jan 4, 2024D · Potential for 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

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 6).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202490F
202531J ▲
202670D

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)

1 fine totaling $8,281.

DateTypeAmount / length
Oct 15, 2025Fine$8,281

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)3.745.153.95bottom 3% in North Dakota; bottom 49% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.931.090.69bottom 31% in North Dakota; top 19% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.354.433.50bottom 7% in North Dakota; bottom 50% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.700.590.48top 26% in North Dakota; top 16% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)50.048.845.8top 48% in North Dakota; bottom 38% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)25.040.342.9top 19% in North Dakota; top 20% 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 3.23, RN 0.80, weekend 2.89. 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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
SanfordOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2019
The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan SocietyOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%01/01/2019
Bergh, PatriciaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/21/2020
Cain, JamesIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Dykhouse, DanaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Engbrecht, WesleyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Fluit, JoelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Gassen, WilliamIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Gassen, WilliamIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Gulsvig, NeilIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Herseth Sandlin, StephanieIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Lundeen, MarkIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Mertz-Hack, TaraIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2023
Middleton, AimeeIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/27/2022
Molbert, LaurisIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Morrison, TonyIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2019
North, AndrewIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Olson, NicholasIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/08/2024
Rogers, MichaelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/13/2022
Schema, NathanIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022

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 Rose Care Center17.7 miLamoure, ND★★★☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 1 closest →

All facilities in Oakes →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 355095.