GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe in Mandan, North Dakota has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #38 out of 72 facilities in North Dakota, placing them in the bottom half, and #3 out of 5 in Morton County, meaning there are only two local options that are better. The facility is showing signs of improvement; the number of reported issues decreased from three in 2024 to one in 2025. Staffing is a strong point here with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 40%, which is better than the state average. However, the facility has faced serious incidents, including a critical failure to use safety devices that led to a resident's fall and fracture, and a serious failure to provide CPR to a resident when needed, raising concerns about the overall safety and responsiveness of care.
- Trust Score
- F
- In North Dakota
- #38/72
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near North Dakota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $54,670 in fines. Higher than 78% of North Dakota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for North Dakota. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 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 (40%)
8 points below North Dakota average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near North Dakota average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near North Dakota avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
1 deficiency
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, review of the facility reported incident (FRI), review of facility training records, review of facility policy, review of manufacturer's guide, and staff interview...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
1. Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 1 of 3 sampled residents with an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, policy review, review of staff education, review of facility reported incident, and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervisio...
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
Based on review of the facility reported incident, review of facility policy, and record review, the facility failed to report an incident of potential neglect to the State Survey Agency (SA) for 1 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
7 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 F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to promote privacy and confidentiality of the medication administration records (MAR) on 2 of 6 units (300 and 400 unit) observed. Failure...
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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the resident or their representative and/or the State Long Term Care Ombudsman written notice of ...
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 staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed-hold notice to 1 of 5 sampled residents (Reside...
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 F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to review ...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and family and staff interview, the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) for 1 of 17 sampled resi...
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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, review of professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice regarding medication administration for 19 of 20 unidentif...
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
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow infection control practices on 2 of 2 units with Covid positive residents (Unit 500 and 600). Failur...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, manufacturer resources, and staff interviews, the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on information provided by the complainant, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, review of the facility reported incident investigation, review of facility policy, personnel record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to immediately start Cardio...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Section M. Skin Conditions
The Long-Term Care Facility RAI Manual, revised October 2019, page M-29, stated, M1040: Other Ulcers,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy, and resident/family and staff interviews, the facility failed to assist with activities...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and review of facility policy/exemption form, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 7 staff members unvaccinated for COVID-19 (Staff A and B) met all requirements for a medical exe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION
1. Based on observation, record review, and review of manufacturer's guidelines, the facility failed ...
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 observation, review of facility policy, review of professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure food is stored, prepared, and served in a sanitary manner for 1 of...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** BLOOD GLUCOSE METERS
Review of the facility policy, Blood Glucose Monitoring, Disinfecting and Cleaning occurred on 08/31/22. Th...
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
- • 40% turnover. Below North Dakota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $54,670 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $54,670 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Dakota. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe A Prospera Co's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within North Dakota, 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 Miller Pointe A Prospera Co Staffed?
CMS rates GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the North Dakota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe A Prospera Co?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 17 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 Miller Pointe A Prospera Co?
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO 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 120 certified beds and approximately 115 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MANDAN, North Dakota.
How Does Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe A Prospera Co Compare to Other North Dakota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Dakota, GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe A Prospera Co?
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 Miller Pointe A Prospera Co Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 North Dakota. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe A Prospera Co Stick Around?
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO has a staff turnover rate of 40%, which is about average for North Dakota 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 Miller Pointe A Prospera Co Ever Fined?
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO has been fined $54,670 across 1 penalty action. This is above the North Dakota average of $33,626. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe A Prospera Co on Any Federal Watch List?
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY MILLER POINTE A PROSPERA CO 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.