Good Samaritan Society - Millard
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Good Samaritan Society - Millard has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #49 out of 177 facilities in Nebraska, placing it in the top half statewide, and #6 of 23 in Douglas County, meaning only five other options are rated higher locally. The facility's trend is stable, having reported three issues in both 2024 and 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 45%, which is better than the Nebraska average. There have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign, and it has more RN coverage than 89% of facilities, ensuring better oversight of resident care. However, there are some concerns; the facility has reported a total of 16 issues, all classified as potential harm. Specific incidents include unsecured treatment carts containing insulin, which were left unlocked when unattended, and unsafe water temperatures in handwashing sinks that could cause burns to residents. While the staffing and RN coverage are commendable, the facility must address these safety issues to improve overall resident care.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Nebraska
- #49/177
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 45% turnover. Near Nebraska's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Nebraska facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Nebraska. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (45%)
3 points below Nebraska average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Nebraska avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
3 deficiencies
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H)
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to perform neurological checks after a fall for 2 (Resident 1 and 3) of 4 residents sampled. Th...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 12-006.09 (I)(i)(3).
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to impleme...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Licensure Reference Number 12-006.12(D)(i)
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the treatment carts on the 200 and 500 halls were secure while left unattende...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(G)(ii)
Based on record review and interview; the facility staff failed to provide a Transfer Discharge notification for 1 (Resident 18) of 1 resident. The ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10
Based on record review and interview; facility staff failed to ensure 1 (Resident 18) of 5 residents was free of duplicate medication orders (orders for tw...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 1-009.04(i)
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility staff failed to maintain water temperatures in resident handwashing sinks to prevent the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10D
Based on observations, interviews and record review; the facility failed to ensure that insulin was administered within recommended time frames for 1 of 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
6 deficiencies
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
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.10A1
Based on observations, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to evaluate 2 (Resident 10 and 11) of 2 residents for the ability to self m...
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
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-00605(8)
Based on observations, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to ...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference: 175 NAC 12-006.09
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure neurological assessments [an assessment of neurological functions, motor and sensory response...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D7
Based on record review and interview; the facility staff failed to implement addi...
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
Deficiency F0729
(Tag F0729)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference: 12-006.04A3b
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 [Agency Direct Care Staff Member E] of 1 sampled agency staff member had completed a training an...
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
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.10D
Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. Observations of 33 medicat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
B. Review of Resident 24's medical record revealed Resident 24 was transferred to the hospital on 8/5/2022 for uncontrolled respiratory failure.
Review of Resident 24's medical record revealed a bed ...
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** LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D6
Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to have ph...
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
D. An observation on 08/10/2022 at 09:03 AM of medication administration by LPN-A (Licensed Practical Nurse) to Resident 6 revealed the following medications were administered:
-Baclofen 10mg - Give ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Nebraska facilities.
- • 45% turnover. Below Nebraska's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Good Samaritan Society - Millard's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Good Samaritan Society - Millard an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Nebraska, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Good Samaritan Society - Millard Staffed?
CMS rates Good Samaritan Society - Millard's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Nebraska average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Good Samaritan Society - Millard?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at Good Samaritan Society - Millard during 2022 to 2025. These included: 16 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Good Samaritan Society - Millard?
Good Samaritan Society - Millard 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 106 certified beds and approximately 62 residents (about 58% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Omaha, Nebraska.
How Does Good Samaritan Society - Millard Compare to Other Nebraska Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Nebraska, Good Samaritan Society - Millard's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (45%) 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 - Millard?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Good Samaritan Society - Millard Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Good Samaritan Society - Millard has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Nebraska. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Good Samaritan Society - Millard Stick Around?
Good Samaritan Society - Millard has a staff turnover rate of 45%, which is about average for Nebraska 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 - Millard Ever Fined?
Good Samaritan Society - Millard has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Good Samaritan Society - Millard on Any Federal Watch List?
Good Samaritan Society - Millard 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.