Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerns about care quality. It ranks #118 out of 177 facilities in Nebraska, placing it in the bottom half statewide, but is #3 of 5 in Sarpy County, meaning only two local options are worse. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 8 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, earning a 4 out of 5 stars, although the turnover rate is concerning at 69%, significantly higher than the state average of 49%. They have incurred $13,000 in fines, indicating compliance problems that are higher than 84% of Nebraska facilities. While the facility has average RN coverage, specific incidents raised concerns. For example, there were multiple failures to perform proper hand hygiene during medication administration, which risks spreading infections. Additionally, food safety practices were lacking, as staff did not label and date food items correctly and failed to maintain cleanliness in food preparation areas, potentially jeopardizing the health of residents. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing, significant issues remain that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Nebraska
- #118/177
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $13,000 in fines. Higher than 88% of Nebraska facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Nebraska. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 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
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Nebraska average (2.9)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
23pts above Nebraska avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
21 points above Nebraska average of 48%
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
9 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** B. Record review of Resident 47's Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 04-3...
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
Licensure Reference Number 12-006.02(H) and St 28-372
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to submit an investigation report on an injury of unknown origin to the state agency in 5...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was completed in 48 hours after Resident...
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
B Record review of a practitioners order dated 3/22/2025 revealed the following information
-Nebulizer tubing set up: Change Duoneb tubing, mask and aersol chamber weekly. Ensure the date and initials...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to identify specific behavioral symptoms for the continued use of antidepressant medications for 2 (Residents 5 and 9) of 5 sampled resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12(A)(vi)
Based on interviews and record reviews; the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were completed for 3 (Residents 5, 8, and 9) of 5 sam...
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
Nebraska Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11(A)(i)
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews; the facility failed to follow the menu to assure nutritional value of foods in 1 (Cot...
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
Nebraska Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.11(A)(i)
Nebraska Food Code 2017 4-602.11(D)(5)
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews; the facility failed to ensure the cleanliness ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04(B)(ii)(1)
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure nursing assistants received annual abuse and dementia training for 5 of 5 empl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
4 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
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10B1
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10B1a
Licensure Reference Number 175 NA...
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 F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10D
Based on observations, record review, and interview; the facility failed to follow...
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 F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12E1,
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12E1a,
Licensure Reference Number 175...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.17B
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.17D
Based on observation, record review, and interviews; the facility failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
4 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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D2b
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** F. Record review of a facility investigation report dated 12/21/2023 revealed on 12/14/2023 there was 30 tablets of Oxycodone (a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.17B
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.00617D
Based on observation, interview, and ...
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11E
Based on observations, record reviews and interviews; the facility failed to ensur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference: 175 NAC 12-006.09D7
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to evaluate fal...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
4 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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.05(5)
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a written no...
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 F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain a signed bed-hold policy at the time of transfer to the hosp...
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.04C
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient sta...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
B.
On 3/15/2023 at 11:00 AM observation during med pass with Licensed Practical Nurse A (LPN) and Medication aide (MA B) revealed MA B did not perform hand hygiene before putting on gloves to preform...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "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.
- • 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • $13,000 in fines. Above average for Nebraska. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Nebraska, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages Staffed?
CMS rates Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 69%, which is 23 percentage points above the Nebraska average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 90%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages during 2023 to 2025. These included: 22 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages?
Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 48 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Papillion, Nebraska.
How Does Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages Compare to Other Nebraska Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Nebraska, Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (69%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 high staff turnover rate.
Is Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages is high. At 69%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the Nebraska average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 90%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages Ever Fined?
Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages has been fined $13,000 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Nebraska average of $33,209. 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 Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages on Any Federal Watch List?
Hillcrest Country Estates-Cottages 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.