North Dakota ›McVille

Nelson County Health System Care Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

108 E Nyhus Ave, McVille, ND 58254 (opens Google Maps) · Nelson County · (701) 322-4314· 35 certified beds · avg 32 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1980 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

What the abuse flag means →

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)
inspected Apr 1, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Nov 26, 2024
$36,855
Fines, last 3 years
5.15
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →

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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 26, 2024 · 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Jan 6, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 15 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    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. · from a complaint F-0600

  2. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint F-0610

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    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. · from a complaint F-0600

View all 15 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 29, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Apr 29, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Jun 23, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Apr 1, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0880
Nov 26, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Nov 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0605
Mar 21, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0657
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0880
Mar 15, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609
Mar 15, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 1).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202320D
202491G ▲
202520D
202620D

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $36,855.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Nov 26, 2024Fine$36,855

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityNorth Dakota averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.15
North Dakota average: 5.15
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.88
North Dakota average: 1.09
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.37
North Dakota average: 4.43
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityNorth Dakota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.155.153.95top 50% in North Dakota; top 11% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.881.090.69bottom 27% in North Dakota; top 22% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.374.433.50bottom 47% in North Dakota; top 14% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.370.590.48bottom 13% in North Dakota; bottom 47% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)51.248.845.8bottom 46% in North Dakota; bottom 34% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)16.740.342.9top 8% in North Dakota; top 9% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 4.07, RN 0.70, weekend 3.45.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.07 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Nelson County Health System Care Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

Government - City

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Nelson County Health SystemOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2010
Berg, IvanIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/06/2011
Forde, StevenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/19/2016
Jensen, BrandonIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/07/2013
Lundeby, BrandonIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/06/2011
Oxton, RanaeIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/06/2011
Stein, HeatherIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/24/2014
Swenson, CatherineIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE10/14/2015
Twete, AngelaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/24/2014
Twete, JudithIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/06/2011

All 10 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
  • "How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
  • "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the North Dakota midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 51% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Aneta Parkview Health Ctr10.6 miAneta, ND★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 1 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Nelson, ND — 3 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in McVille →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 355052.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details