2305 South 10th Street, Omaha, NE 68108 (opens Google Maps) · Douglas County · (402) 345-5683· 184 certified beds · avg 153 residents/day · certified since Jul 13, 1987 · 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 →
Part of chain: DELMAR GARDENS (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jul 21, 2023 · F-0600
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): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Aug 16, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 10, 2026 · 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): 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: Jun 27, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 22, 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): 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: Sep 21, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. F-0867
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0686 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0695 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · F-0699 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Jul 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0609 |
| Jul 21, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility hired someone with an official finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft against them. Facilities are not allowed to employ people with such findings. · from a complaint · F-0606 |
| Jul 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0880 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · from a complaint · F-0803 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0690 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · from a complaint · F-0887 |
| Jul 21, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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. · F-0600 |
| Jul 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Jul 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Jul 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Jul 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Jul 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility employed staff who were not licensed, certified, or registered as required by state law. · F-0839 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 15).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 6 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2024 | 9 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 16 | 1 | G ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $12,048.
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.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2024 | Fine | $12,048 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Nebraska avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.48 | 4.33 | 3.95 | top 40% in Nebraska; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.37 | 0.72 | 0.69 | bottom 11% in Nebraska; bottom 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.25 | 3.79 | 3.50 | top 25% in Nebraska; top 17% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.25 | 0.47 | 0.48 | bottom 15% in Nebraska; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 35.8 | 48.7 | 45.8 | top 24% in Nebraska; top 26% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 46.2 | 44.1 | 42.9 | bottom 44% in Nebraska; bottom 42% 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 3.86, RN 0.32, weekend 3.67.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.86 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for St. Joseph Villa Nursing Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delmar Gardens Enterprises INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 03/12/2003 |
| Gabe Grossberg and George Grossberg, Trustees of the Henry and Barbara | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 8% | 03/12/2003 |
| George Grossberg and Gabe Grossberg, Trustees of the Henry and Barbara | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 8% | 03/12/2003 |
| Goldberg-Nom LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 25% | 03/12/2003 |
| Grossberg, Gabe | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 16% | 03/12/2003 |
| Grossberg, George | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 11% | 03/12/2003 |
| Non-Gst Family Trust Est U/W of Israel Goldberg Fbo Janice Bitanski | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 6% | 04/10/2013 |
| Non-Gst Family Trust Established U/W of Israel Goldberg Fbo Harry Zvi | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 6% | 04/10/2013 |
| Non-Gstfamily Trust Est U/W Israel Goldberg Fbo Diane Fredman | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 6% | 04/10/2013 |
| Delmar Gardens Management Services INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2005 |
| Grossberg, Gabe | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/12/2003 |
| Leguillow, Hector | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/13/2012 |
| Marx, Kenneth | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/11/2019 |
| Oppenheimer, Howard | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/12/2003 |
All 14 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Delmar Gardens — 12 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douglas County Health Center | 2.4 mi | Omaha, NE | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Cypress at Midtown | 2.5 mi | Omaha, NE | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Ambassador Health of Omaha | 3.1 mi | Omaha, NE | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Omaha Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 3.6 mi | Omaha, NE | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Emerald Nursing & Rehab Omaha | 3.7 mi | Omaha, NE | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Emerald Nursing & Rehabilitation Mercy | 5.1 mi | Omaha, NE | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Maple Crest Health Center | 5.5 mi | Omaha, NE | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| North Crest Living Center | 5.7 mi | Council Bluffs, IA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Midlands Living Center L L C | 5.7 mi | Council Bluffs, IA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethany Lutheran Home | 6.0 mi | Council Bluffs, IA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Prairie Gate | 6.2 mi | Council Bluffs, IA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Emerald Nursing & Rehab Legacy Pointe LLC | 6.3 mi | Omaha, NE | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Douglas, NE — 24 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 285078.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details