Good Samaritan Society - George
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Good Samaritan Society - George in George, Iowa has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's operations. It ranks #190 out of 392 in Iowa, placing it in the top half of state facilities, and #2 out of 3 in Lyon County, suggesting that only one local option is better. The facility is showing improvement, with issues decreasing from 6 in 2024 to 5 in 2025, but it still faced serious incidents, including a failure to report an allegation of abuse by staff and not preventing a resident at risk for elopement from exiting unattended. Staffing is a strong point, rated at 4 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 41%, which is below the state average, and they have more RN coverage than 97% of Iowa facilities. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $18,142, which are higher than 77% of Iowa facilities, indicating potential compliance issues.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Iowa
- #190/392
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 41% turnover. Near Iowa's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $18,142 in fines. Lower than most Iowa facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 70 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Iowa nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (41%)
7 points below Iowa average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Iowa average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Iowa avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0628
(Tag F0628)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure bed hold notice was signed by re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews and policy reviews, the facility failed to provide staff with current continuou...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility staff failed to serve proper serving amounts for residents. The facility identified a census of 31 residents. Findings i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under sanitary conditions. The facility identified a census of 31 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report from Fiscal Quarter 2, 2025 (January 1 through March 31) review, facility staffing review,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
6 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility investigation review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy review the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility record review, staff interviews and facility policy the facility failed to appropriate...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility record review, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to repo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, facility policy and staff interview, the facility failed to provide proper hand hygiene during urinary catheter care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #16). The facility reported a t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of the menu, observation, and staff interviews the facility failed to serve the full portions of food and failed to consistently fill and empty scoop utensils when preparing meals for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report (January 1-March 31) review, facility staffing reports review, and staff interviews, the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
10 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, facility record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ens...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview the facility failed to notify the Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman for 1 of 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure bed hold notice was signed by re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to submit a Preadmission Screening and Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan when a resident had n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide professional standards of care by administering medic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and interview, the facility lacked a discharge summary including a recapitulation of a resident'...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, observation, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide treatment to pressur...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to revise care plans with medication changes...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, facility policy, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and staff interview, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene when assisting residents during meals and cov...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 41% turnover. Below Iowa's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $18,142 in fines. Above average for Iowa. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (34/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Good Samaritan Society - George's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Good Samaritan Society - George an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Iowa, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Good Samaritan Society - George Staffed?
CMS rates Good Samaritan Society - George's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Iowa average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Good Samaritan Society - George?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at Good Samaritan Society - George during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 19 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Good Samaritan Society - George?
Good Samaritan Society - George is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 42 certified beds and approximately 31 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in George, Iowa.
How Does Good Samaritan Society - George Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Good Samaritan Society - George's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Good Samaritan Society - George?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Good Samaritan Society - George Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Good Samaritan Society - George has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Good Samaritan Society - George Stick Around?
Good Samaritan Society - George has a staff turnover rate of 41%, which is about average for Iowa nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Good Samaritan Society - George Ever Fined?
Good Samaritan Society - George has been fined $18,142 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Iowa average of $33,260. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Good Samaritan Society - George on Any Federal Watch List?
Good Samaritan Society - George is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.