TRINITY HOMES
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Trinity Homes in Minot, North Dakota, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's performance, which is among the lowest ratings. It ranks #70 out of 72 nursing homes in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Ward County, meaning there is only one other option nearby that is better. While the trend is improving, with issues dropping from 13 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, the facility still has serious problems, including reports of verbal and physical abuse from a resident that went unaddressed, affecting the safety and well-being of others. Staffing is a relative strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate of 60% is concerning, as it is higher than the state average. The facility has incurred $65,253 in fines, which is average but indicates some ongoing compliance issues, and RN coverage is at an average level, meaning that while there are nurses present, there may not be enough to catch all potential problems.
- Trust Score
- F
- In North Dakota
- #70/72
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $65,253 in fines. Lower than most North Dakota facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 61 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of North Dakota nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 25 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 North Dakota average (3.1)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
14pts above North Dakota avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
12 points above North Dakota average of 48%
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
May 2025
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
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 observation, record review, review of a facility reported incident, policy review, and staff interview, the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
2 deficiencies
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the facility reported incident, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 F0744
(Tag F0744)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate dementia care a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
9 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident #36's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included muscle weakness and difficulty walk...
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
Based on observation, record review, review of professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards for 2 of 2 sampled residents (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, review of professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to restore, if possible, oral eating skills for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #33) w...
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 observation, record review, review of professional reference, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure approp...
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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's medication regimen remained free of unnecessary medications for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #21, #66, an...
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
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan to reflect the current status for 6 of 25 samp...
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner in 1 of 1 main kitchen. Failure to maintain freezing systems has the potential to affect food quality/p...
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 observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 6 of 25 sampled residents (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
2 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
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 review of State Survey Agency reports, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility fail...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and se...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
4 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, review of facility investigation, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #68) w...
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 F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure acceptable parameters of nutritional status for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #315) with documented weight variances indic...
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
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent during administration of medication...
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
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure safe and secure storage of medications for 1 of 4 medication carts (4 East wing) observed during medication pass. Failure to sto...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2022
7 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** Based on observation, record review, review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manua...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive c...
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 observation, review of professional reference, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide assist...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
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 professional reference, policy and procedure review, and staff interview, the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to properly store foods and/or consistently monitor/record refrigerator/freezer temperatures in...
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, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow infection control practices for 3 of 15 sampled residents (Resident #25, #57, and #11...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate labeling of multi-dose insulin pens for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#58, #87, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 5 harm violation(s), $65,253 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 5 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $65,253 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Dakota. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Trinity Homes's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns TRINITY HOMES an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within North Dakota, 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 Trinity Homes Staffed?
CMS rates TRINITY HOMES's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the North Dakota average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Trinity Homes?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at TRINITY HOMES during 2022 to 2025. These included: 5 that caused actual resident harm and 20 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Trinity Homes?
TRINITY HOMES is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 161 certified beds and approximately 129 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MINOT, North Dakota.
How Does Trinity Homes Compare to Other North Dakota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Dakota, TRINITY HOMES's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Trinity Homes?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the substantiated abuse finding on record and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Trinity Homes Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, TRINITY HOMES has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 1-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 Trinity Homes Stick Around?
Staff turnover at TRINITY HOMES is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the North Dakota average of 46%. 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 Trinity Homes Ever Fined?
TRINITY HOMES has been fined $65,253 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the North Dakota average of $33,731. 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 Trinity Homes on Any Federal Watch List?
TRINITY HOMES 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.